Literature DB >> 21383610

Pathologic stage of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma at radical prostatectomy: effect of percentage of the ductal component and associated grade of acinar adenocarcinoma.

Ali Amin1, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

It is unknown whether ductal adenocarcinomas are more aggressive when matched for Gleason score (assigning the ductal component as Gleason pattern 4). Moreover, little is known whether a certain percentage of the ductal component is needed to account for its more aggressive behavior. Of 18,552 radical prostatectomies performed from 1995 to 2008, 93 cases with a ductal adenocarcinoma component were identified. Cases were classified based on their ductal/acinar ratio (<10%; ≥10% and <50%; ≥50%). There was no difference in the distribution of Gleason score 3+4=7 versus 4+3=7 between ductal and nonductal tumors, such that cases were combined as Gleason score 7. There was no age, race, and serum prostate-specific antigen difference between patients with and without ductal adenocarcinoma. Cases with ductal adenocarcinoma were less likely to be organ confined (36.6% vs 65.6%) and more likely to show seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (19.3% vs 5.3%), P<0.0001. There was no difference in lymph node metastases or positive margins between cases with and without ductal features. An increasing percentage of the ductal component correlated with an increased risk of extraprostatic extension (P=0.04) and SVI (P<0.0001). To account for overall different Gleason scores between ductal and nonductal cases, and the effect of differing percentages of ductal features as well, the following analysis was carried out. For Gleason score 7 cases and ≥10% ductal differentiation, cases with ductal features were more likely to have nonfocal extraprostatic extension (64.0%) versus cases without ductal features (34.7%), P=0.002. In this group, there was no statistically significant difference in SVI or lymph node involvement between Gleason score 7 ductal and nonductal tumors. For Gleason score 7 cases with <10% ductal features, there was no difference in pathologic stage versus nonductal cases. There was no difference in pathologic stage between ductal and nonductal cases for Gleason score 8 to 10 cases, regardless of the percentage of the ductal component. This study shows that ductal adenocarcinoma admixed with Gleason pattern 3 is more aggressive than Gleason score 7 acinar cancer, as long as the ductal component is ≥10%. In cases with a very minor ductal component, these differences are lost. In addition, Gleason score 8 to 10 tumors with ductal features are not significantly more aggressive that acinar Gleason score 8 to 10 cancers in which the pure high-grade tumor, regardless of ductal features, determines the behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21383610      PMCID: PMC4425125          DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31820eb25b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  17 in total

1.  Endometrial tumors and/or associated carcinomas of prostate.

Authors:  M Tannenbaum
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Prostatic adenocarcinoma of ductal origin.

Authors:  L F Greene; G M Farrow; J M Ravits; F M Tomera
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings.

Authors:  Brian D Robinson; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  Endometrial carcinoma of proxtatic utricle (uterus masculinus).

Authors:  M M Melicow; M R Pachter
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1967-10       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma. Findings at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  W N Christensen; G Steinberg; P C Walsh; J I Epstein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with endometrioid features. A light microscopic and immunohistochemical study of ten cases.

Authors:  J I Epstein; J M Woodruff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1986-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasialike ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases.

Authors:  Fabio Tavora; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  Prostatic adenocarcinoma with endometrioid features. Clinical, pathologic, and ultrastructural findings.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; R W Kindrachuk; R V Rouse
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Immunohistochemical antibody cocktail staining (p63/HMWCK/AMACR) of ductal adenocarcinoma and Gleason pattern 4 cribriform and noncribriform acinar adenocarcinomas of the prostate.

Authors:  Mehsati Herawi; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 6.394

View more
  11 in total

1.  Ductal and Acinar Adenocarcinoma of Prostate: Morphological and Immunohistochemical Characterization.

Authors:  Faraz A Baig; Amna Hamid; Talat Mirza; Serajuddaula Syed
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2015-05

2.  PTEN loss and ERG protein expression are infrequent in prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas and concurrent acinar carcinomas.

Authors:  Carlos L Morais; Mehsati Herawi; Antoun Toubaji; Roula Albadine; Jessica Hicks; George J Netto; Angelo M De Marzo; Jonathan I Epstein; Tamara L Lotan
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging findings of pure prostatic ductal adenocarcinomas: a case series.

Authors:  Hiromi Edo; Yasuyo Urase; Yoshiko Ueno; Ayumu Kido; Tsutomu Tamada; Yudai Asano; Kentaro Ida; Hisataka Ito; Takashi Koyama; Kosuke Miyai; Hitoshi Tsuda; Hiroshi Shinmoto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-02-28

4.  Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma: An aggressive variant that is underdiagnosed and undersampled on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy.

Authors:  Previn Gulavita; Shaheed W Hakim; Nicola Schieda; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Daniel T Keefe; Susan J Robertson; Kien T Mai; Eric C Belanger; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 5.  Optimizing the diagnosis and management of ductal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Weranja Ranasinghe; Daniel D Shapiro; Miao Zhang; Tharakeswara Bathala; Nora Navone; Timothy C Thompson; Bradley Broom; Ana Aparicio; Shi-Ming Tu; Chad Tang; John W Davis; Louis Pisters; Brian F Chapin
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  ECR 2015 Book of Abstracts - D - Satellite Symposia.

Authors: 
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2015-03

7.  False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Quon; Bardia Moosavi; Maneesh Khanna; Trevor A Flood; Christopher S Lim; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2015-05-23

8.  Clinicopathological features of prostate ductal carcinoma: matching analysis and comparison with prostate acinar carcinoma.

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

Review 9.  Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland: Recent Advances.

Authors:  Mukul K Divatia; Jae Y Ro
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.759

10.  HoxB13 expression in ductal type adenocarcinoma of prostate: clinicopathologic characteristics and its utility as potential diagnostic marker.

Authors:  Cheol Keun Park; Su-Jin Shin; Yoon Ah Cho; Jin Woo Joo; Nam Hoon Cho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.