Novinky v patologii prostaty

English version

Autoři: Weisheng Xu ¹; Ming Zhou ^1,2
Působiště autorů: Departments of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA ¹; Departments of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA ²
Vyšlo v časopise: Čes.-slov. Patol., 50, 2014, No. 4, p. 120-128
Kategorie: Přehledové články - Uropatologie

Souhrn

Karcinom prostaty je (mimo kožních nádorů) nejčastější malignitou mužů v rozvinutých zemích a jeho incidence v rozvojových zemích stále roste. Aktivní výzkum v posledních letech výrazně napomohl porozumění biologie a genetiky karcinomu prostaty, vedl ke zlepšení jeho diagnostiky i léčby. Gleasonův grading stále hraje v nastavení léčebné strategie pacientů s karcinomem prostaty zásadní roli. Tento grading se však od začátku vyvíjí a odráží tak postupné změny v klinické praxi. Modifikovaný Gleasonův grading byl zaveden v roce 2005 a výrazně změnil způsob, jakým je grade karcinomu prostaty stanovován, i způsob, jakým je pacient poté léčen. Několik histologických typů karcinomu prostaty s odlišnými klinickými a patologickými znaky bylo nově objeveno nebo předefinováno. Konečně, pochopení molekulárních a genetických mechanismů pomáhá nejen lépe porozumět patogenezi karcinomu prostaty, ale také identifikovat biomarkery pro lepší diagnostiku, stratifikaci rizika a klinický management onemocnění. Tento text stručně shrnuje nejnovější změny v Gleasonově gradingu, nové histologické typy a molekulární genetiku karcinomu prostaty.

Klíčová slova:
prostata - Gleasonovo skóre - intraduktální karcinom - neuroendokrinní diferenciace - molekulární genetika

Zdroje

1. Baade PD, Youlden DR, Krnjacki LJ. International epidemiology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends. Mol Nutr Food Res 2009; 53(2): 171-184.

2. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111(1): 58-64.

3. Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J, 3rd. The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol 1967; 97(2): 331-337.

4. Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010; 183(2): 433-440.

5. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992; 23(3): 273-279.

6. Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012; 136(4): 426-434.

7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr., Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29(9): 1228-1242.

8. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32(10): 1532-1539.

9. Andreoiu M, Cheng L. Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol 2010; 41(6): 781-793.

10. Huang CC, Deng FM, Kong MX, Ren Q, Melamed J, Zhou M. Re-evaluating the concept of “dominant/index tumor nodule” in multifocal prostate cancer. Virchows Arch 2014; 464(5): 589-594.

11. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185(3): 869-875.

12. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, et al. Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72(1): 172-176.

13. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111(5): 753-760.

14. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(35): 4294-4296.

15. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61(5): 1019-1024.

16. Allsbrook WC, Jr., Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001; 32(1): 81-88.

17. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol 2008; 179(4): 1335-1338.

18. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006; 449(6): 622-627.

19. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21(5): 566-576.

20. Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, et al. Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice? Int J Surg Pathol 2010; 18(4): 248-254.

21. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58(6): 843-838.

22. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171(5): 1844-1849.

23. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98(10): 715-717.

24. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169(2): 517-523.

25. Berney DM. The case for modifying the Gleason grading system. BJU Int 2007; 100(4): 725-726.

26. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008; 180(2): 548-552.

27. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, et al. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36(6): 838-843.

28. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2009; 103(9): 1190-1194.

29. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42(4): 339-343.

30. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012; 62(3): 462-468.

31. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110(11): 1672-1677.

32. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urology 2008; 179(1): 28-33.

33. Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, Rubin MA. A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007; 131(7): 1103-1109.

34. Shah RB, Magi-Galluzzi C, Han B, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: relationship to prostatic carcinoma and implication for diagnosis in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34(4): 470-477.

35. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20(7): 802-814.

36. Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: Histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 2006; 19(12): 1528-1535.

37. Cohen RJ, McNeal JE, Baillie T. Patterns of differentiation and proliferation in intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: significance for cancer progression. Prostate 2000; 43(1): 11-19.

38. Dawkins HJ, Sellner LN, Turbett GR, et al. Distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), high-grade dysplasia (PIN), and invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma, using molecular markers of cancer progression. Prostate 2000; 44(4): 265-270.

39. Rubin MA, de La Taille A, Bagiella E, Olsson CA, O’Toole KM. Cribriform carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: incidence and clinical implications. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22(7): 840-848.

40. Wilcox G, Soh S, Chakraborty S, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia associated with clinically aggressive prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998; 29(10): 1119-1123.

41. Watts K, Li J, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M. Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal carcinoma detected in prostate biopsies: a prospective cohort study. Histopathology 2013; 63(4): 574-579.

42. Cohen RJ, Chan WC, Edgar SG, et al. Prediction of pathological stage and clinical outcome in prostate cancer: an improved pre-operative model incorporating biopsy-determined intraductal carcinoma. Br J Urol 1998; 81(3): 413-418.

43. O’Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Moorin RE. A post-radical-prostatectomy nomogram incorporating new pathological variables and interaction terms for improved prognosis. BJU Int 2011; 107(3): 389-395.

44. Van der Kwast T, Al Daoud N, Collette L, et al. Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48(9): 1318-1325.

45. Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2010; 184(4): 1328-1333.

46. Aggarwal R, Zhang T, Small EJ, Armstrong AJ. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer: subtypes, biology, and clinical outcomes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014; 12(5): 719-726.

47. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Beltran H, et al. Proposed morphologic classification of prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38(6): 756-767.

48. Tamas EF, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 2006; 30(8): 980-985.

49. Wang W, Epstein JI. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. A morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 95 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32(1): 65-71.

50. Yao JL, Madeb R, Bourne P, et al. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate: an immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 2006; 30(6): 705-712.

51. Agoff SN, Lamps LW, Philip AT, et al. Thyroid transcription factor-1 is expressed in extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas but not in other extrapulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. Mod Pathol 2000;13(3): 238-242.

52. Ordonez NG. Value of thyroid transcription factor-1, E-cadherin, BG8, WT1, and CD44S immunostaining in distinguishing epithelial pleural mesothelioma from pulmonary and nonpulmonary adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24(4): 598-606.

53. Guo CC, Dancer JY, Wang Y, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Hum Pathol 2011; 42(1): 11-17.

54. Lotan TL, Gupta NS, Wang W, et al. ERG gene rearrangements are common in prostatic small cell carcinomas. Mod Pathol 2011; 24(6): 820-828.

55. Scheble VJ, Braun M, Wilbertz T, et al. ERG rearrangement in small cell prostatic and lung cancer. Histopathology 2010; 56(7): 937-943.

56. Schelling LA, Williamson SR, Zhang S, et al. Frequent TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement in prostatic small cell carcinoma detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: the superiority of fluorescence in situ hybridization over ERG immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol 2013; 44(10): 2227-2233.

57. Williamson SR, Zhang S, Yao JL, et al. ERG-TMPRSS2 rearrangement is shared by concurrent prostatic adenocarcinoma and prostatic small cell carcinoma and absent in small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: evidence supporting monoclonal origin. Mod Pathol 2011; 24(8): 1120-1127.

58. Evans AJ, Humphrey PA, Belani J, van der Kwast TH, Srigley JR. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of prostate: a clinicopathologic summary of 7 cases of a rare manifestation of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2006; 30(6): 684-693.

59. Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 2005; 310(5748): 644-648.

60. Rubin MA, Maher CA, Chinnaiyan AM. Common gene rearrangements in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(27): 3659-3668.

61. Park K, Tomlins SA, Mudaliar KM, et al. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangement-positive prostate cancer. Neoplasia 2010; 12(7): 590-598.

62. Xu B, Chevarie-Davis M, Chevalier S, et al. The prognostic role of ERG immunopositivity in prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma: a study including 454 cases and review of the literature. Hum Pathol 2014; 45(3): 488-497.

63. Perner S, Mosquera JM, Demichelis F, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer: an early molecular event associated with invasion. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31(6): 882-888.

64. Shah RB, Tadros Y, Brummell B, Zhou M. The diagnostic use of ERG in resolving an “atypical glands suspicious for cancer” diagnosis in prostate biopsies beyond that provided by basal cell and alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase markers. Hum Pathol 2013; 44(5): 786-794.

65. Yaskiv O, Zhang X, Simmerman K, et al. The utility of ERG/P63 double immunohistochemical staining in the diagnosis of limited cancer in prostate needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2011; 35(7): 1062-1068.

66. Yaskiv O, Rubin BP, He H, Falzarano S, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M. ERG protein expression in human tumors detected with a rabbit monoclonal antibody. Am J Clin Pathol 2012; 138(6): 803-810.

67. Barbieri CE, Baca SC, Lawrence MS, et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent SPOP, FOXA1 and MED12 mutations in prostate cancer. Nat Gen 2012; 44(6): 685-689.

68. Blattner M, Lee DJ, O’Reilly C, et al. SPOP mutations in prostate cancer across demographically diverse patient cohorts. Neoplasia 2014; 16(1): 14-20.

69. Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Yu J, et al. The role of SPINK1 in ETS rearrangement-negative prostate cancers. Cancer Cell 2008; 13(6): 519-528.

70. Choucair K, Ejdelman J, Brimo F, Aprikian A, Chevalier S, Lapointe J. PTEN genomic deletion predicts prostate cancer recurrence and is associated with low AR expression and transcriptional activity. BMC Cancer 2012; 12:543.

71. Taylor BS, Schultz N, Hieronymus H, et al. Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 2010; 18(1): 11-22.

72. Yoshimoto M, Cunha IW, Coudry RA, et al. FISH analysis of 107 prostate cancers shows that PTEN genomic deletion is associated with poor clinical outcome. Br J Cancer 2007; 97(5): 678-685.

73. Schrecengost R, Knudsen KE. Molecular pathogenesis and progression of prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 2013; 40(3): 244-258.

74. Qian J, Hirasawa K, Bostwick DG, et al. Loss of p53 and c-myc overrepresentation in stage T(2-3)N(1-3)M(0) prostate cancer are potential markers for cancer progression. Mod Pathol 2002; 15(1): 35-44.

75. Sato K, Qian J, Slezak JM, et al. Clinical significance of alterations of chromosome 8 in high-grade, advanced, nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 999; 91(18): 1574-1580.

76. Linja MJ, Visakorpi T. Alterations of androgen receptor in prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2004; 92(4): 255-264.

77. Visakorpi T, Hyytinen E, Koivisto P, et al. In vivo amplification of the androgen receptor gene and progression of human prostate cancer. Nat Gen 1995; 9(4): 401-406.

78. Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62(6): 976-983.

79. Donovan MJ, Cordon-Cardo C. Predicting high-risk disease using tissue biomarkers. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23(3): 245-251.

80. Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer 2012; 106(6): 1095-1099.

81. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(11): 1428-1434.

82. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to aredict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. In press 2014.