Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland (IDCP), which is now categorised as a distinct entity by WHO 2016, includes two biologically distinct diseases. IDCP associated with invasive carcinoma (IDCP-inv) generally represents a growth pattern of invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma while the rarely encountered pure IDCP is a precursor of prostate cancer. This review highlights issues that require further discussion and clarification. The diagnostic criterion “nuclear size at least 6 times normal” is ambiguous as “size” could refer to either nuclear area or diameter. If area, then this criterion could be re-defined as nuclear diameter at least three times normal as it is difficult to visually compare area of nuclei. It is also unclear whether IDCP could also include tumours with ductal morphology. There is no consensus whether pure IDCP in needle biopsies should be managed with re-biopsy or radical therapy. A pragmatic approach would be to recommend radical therapy only for extensive pure IDCP that is morphologically unequivocal for high-grade prostate cancer. Active surveillance is not appropriate when low-grade invasive cancer is associated with IDCP, as such patients usually have unsampled high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma. It is generally recommended that IDCP component of IDCP-inv should be included in tumour extent but not grade. However, there are good arguments in favour of grading IDCP associated with invasive cancer. All historical as well as contemporary Gleason outcome data are based on morphology and would have included an associated IDCP component in the tumour grade. WHO 2016 recommends that IDCP should not be graded, but it is unclear whether this applies to both pure IDCP and IDCP-inv.

Background Accurate grading at the time of diagnosis if fundamental to risk stratification and treatment decision making in patients with prostate cancer. Whilst previous studies have demonstrated significant pathological upgrading and downgrading following radical prostatectomy (RP), these were based on historical cohorts and do not reflect contemporary patient selection and management practices. The aim of this national, multicentre observational study was to characterise contemporary rates and risk factors for pathological upgrading after RP in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods All RP entries on the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Radical Prostatectomy Registry database of prospectively entered cases undertaken between January 2011 and December 2016 were extracted. Those patients with full preoperative PSA, clinical stage, needle biopsy and subsequent RP pathological grade information were included. Upgrade was defined as any increase in Gleason grade from initial needle biopsy to pathological assessment of the entire surgical specimen. Statistical analysis and multivariate logistic regression were undertaken using R version 3.5 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results A total of 17,598 patients met full inclusion criteria. Absolute concordance between initial biopsy and pathological grade was 58.9% ( n = 10,364), whilst upgrade and downgrade rates were 25.5% ( n = 4489) and 15.6% ( n = 2745) respectively. Upgrade rate was highest in those with D’Amico low risk compared with intermediate and high-risk disease (55.7% versus 19.1 and 24.3% respectively, P < 0.001). Although rates varied between year of surgery and geographical regions, these differences were not significant after adjusting for other preoperative diagnostic variables using multivariate logistic regression. Conclusions Pathological upgrading after RP in the UK is lower than expected when compared with other large contemporary series, despite operating on a generally higher risk patient cohort. As new diagnostic techniques that may reduce rates of pathological upgrading become more widely utilised, this study provides an important benchmark against which to measure future performance.

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) hosts a reference image database supervised by experts with the purpose of establishing an international standard in prostate cancer grading. Here, we aimed to identify areas of grading difficulties and compare the results with those obtained from an artificial intelligence system trained in grading. In a series of 87 needle biopsies of cancers selected to include problematic cases, experts failed to reach a 2/3 consensus in 41.4% (36/87). Among consensus and non-consensus cases, the weighted kappa was 0.77 (range 0.68–0.84) and 0.50 (range 0.40–0.57), respectively. Among the non-consensus cases, four main causes of disagreement were identified: the distinction between Gleason score 3 + 3 with tangential cutting artifacts vs. Gleason score 3 + 4 with poorly formed or fused glands (13 cases), Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 (7 cases), Gleason score 4 + 3 vs. 4 + 4 (8 cases) and the identification of a small component of Gleason pattern 5 (6 cases). The AI system obtained a weighted kappa value of 0.53 among the non-consensus cases, placing it as the observer with the sixth best reproducibility out of a total of 24. AI may serve as a decision support and decrease inter-observer variability by its ability to make consistent decisions. The grading of these cancer patterns that best predicts outcome and guides treatment warrants further clinical and genetic studies. Results of such investigations should be used to improve calibration of AI systems.

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) was formed in 2011 to harmonise the datasets, protocols and checklists for pathological reporting of various cancers and develop internationally agreed upon, evidence-based datasets. A dataset for prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens was developed in 2011–2012 as part of a pilot project; however, it required substantial revision following the ISUP Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading in 2014, the publication of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs in 2016, and the 8th edition of the Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system in late 2016. This article presents the up-to-date, evidence-based ICCR dataset and associated commentary for reporting prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. PubMed and Google search engines were used to review the published literature on the subject, and the dataset was developed in line with the previously published ICCR framework for the development of cancer datasets. Substantial changes have been incorporated into the second edition of the ICCR prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy) dataset. These include revisions to prostate cancer grading, reporting of intraductal carcinoma of prostate and surgical margins, among others. Up-to-date cancer datasets underpin structured reporting and facilitate the production of consistent and accurate pathological data for patient care as well as comparisons between different cohorts and populations internationally.

Macroscopic specimen examination is often critical for accurate histopathology reporting but has generally received insufficient attention and may be delegated to inexperienced staff with limited guidance and supervision. This review discusses issues around macroscopic examination of some common urological specimens; highlighting findings that are critical for patient management and others that are clinically irrelevant. Macroscopic findings are of limited value in completely submitted radical prostatectomy specimens but may be critical in orchidectomy specimens where identification of focal non-seminomatous components can significantly impact patient management. The maximum tumour dimension is often an important prognostic indicator, but specimen dimensions are generally of little clinical utility. Specimens should be carefully examined and judiciously sampled to identify clinically important focal abnormalities such as sarcomatoid change in a renal cell carcinoma and a minor non-seminomatous component in a predominant testicular seminoma. Meticulous macroscopic examination is key as less than 0.2% of the specimen (or macroscopically abnormal area) would be histologically examined even if the entire specimen/abnormal area is submitted for microscopic examination. Retroperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection specimens for testicular cancer must be handled very differently from other lymph nodal block dissections. Current sampling protocols for transurethral resection of prostate specimens that are based on pre-MRI era data need to be reconsidered because they were specifically designed to detect occult prostate cancer, which would amount to histological cancer screening. Prostatic sampling of cystoprostatectomy specimens should be directed at accurately staging the known bladder cancer rather than detection of incidental prostate cancer.

IntroductionMany types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man’s lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners.Methods and analysisWe will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: ‘low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1’, ‘low-risk prostate neoplasm’ or ‘low-risk prostate lesion’. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ Trial registration numbersAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).