AIMS: Prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas account for 1% of prostate cancers. Most commonly, these lesions grow in large cribriform and/or papillary patterns or, as recently described, in a manner resembling prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (i.e., 'PIN-like' prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma). This study aims to report rare variants of ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Ten cases of rare patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma that have not been formally investigated prior to this study, primarily from one author's consultation service (1987-2009), were selected. RESULTS: Two (n = 2) cases were prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma with mucinous and goblet cell features. Three (n = 3) cases are the first described cases of foamy gland prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Other unique cases were prostatic duct adenocarcinomas with associated Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine (n = 2), micropapillary (n = 2), and cystic papillary features (n = 1). Prostatic origin was confirmed with immunohistochemical studies for prostate specific antigen (PSA), P501S, and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA). High-grade PIN was ruled out with negative stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) and p63. Four prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas had no evidence of disease at 2-8 years follow-up: foamy gland, Paneth cell-like, and micropapillary (two cases). One mucinous prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma resulted in the patient's death and the other mucinous case was alive at 7 years and 2 months, yet with no information as to status of disease. The remaining four cases were lost to follow-up, died of other causes, or were recent. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we report several rare and unique histological patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The practical importance of recognising these histological variations is that in some cases they may be misdiagnosed as non-prostatic tumours. These unusual cases also provide further support for the relationship between acinar and ductal adenocarcinoma.
AIMS: Prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas account for 1% of prostate cancers. Most commonly, these lesions grow in large cribriform and/or papillary patterns or, as recently described, in a manner resembling prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (i.e., 'PIN-like' prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma). This study aims to report rare variants of ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Ten cases of rare patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma that have not been formally investigated prior to this study, primarily from one author's consultation service (1987-2009), were selected. RESULTS: Two (n = 2) cases were prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma with mucinous and goblet cell features. Three (n = 3) cases are the first described cases of foamy gland prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Other unique cases were prostatic duct adenocarcinomas with associated Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine (n = 2), micropapillary (n = 2), and cystic papillary features (n = 1). Prostatic origin was confirmed with immunohistochemical studies for prostate specific antigen (PSA), P501S, and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA). High-grade PIN was ruled out with negative stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) and p63. Four prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas had no evidence of disease at 2-8 years follow-up: foamy gland, Paneth cell-like, and micropapillary (two cases). One mucinous prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma resulted in the patient's death and the other mucinous case was alive at 7 years and 2 months, yet with no information as to status of disease. The remaining four cases were lost to follow-up, died of other causes, or were recent. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we report several rare and unique histological patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The practical importance of recognising these histological variations is that in some cases they may be misdiagnosed as non-prostatic tumours. These unusual cases also provide further support for the relationship between acinar and ductal adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Kenneth A Iczkowski; Kathleen C Torkko; Gregory R Kotnis; R Storey Wilson; Wei Huang; Thomas M Wheeler; Andrea M Abeyta; Francisco G La Rosa; Shelly Cook; Priya N Werahera; M Scott Lucia Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Francesco Chierigo; Marco Borghesi; Christoph Würnschimmel; Rocco Simone Flammia; Benedikt Horlemann; Gabriele Sorce; Benedikt Höh; Zhe Tian; Fred Saad; Markus Graefen; Michele Gallucci; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Felix K H Chun; Shahrokh F Shariat; Guglielmo Mantica; Nazareno Suardi; Carlo Terrone; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Nithesh Ranasinha; Altan Omer; Yiannis Philippou; Eli Harriss; Lucy Davies; Ken Chow; Paolo M Chetta; Andrew Erickson; Timothy Rajakumar; Ian G Mills; Richard J Bryant; Freddie C Hamdy; Declan G Murphy; Massimo Loda; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran; Clare Verrill; Alastair D Lamb Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-01-05
Authors: Aram Kim; Taekmin Kwon; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Heounjeong Go; Yong Mee Cho; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 2.153