AIMS: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.
AIMS: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.
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
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: Amanda H Seipel; Hemamali Samaratunga; Brett Delahunt; Fredrik Wiklund; Peter Wiklund; Johan Lindberg; Henrik Grönberg; Lars Egevad Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.064
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
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
Authors: Riccardo Laudicella; Jan H Rüschoff; Niels J Rupp; Irene A Burger; Daniela A Ferraro; Muriel D Brada; Daniel Hausmann; Iliana Mebert; Alexander Maurer; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 10.057