Daniel M Berney1, Ferran Algaba2, Mahul Amin3, Brett Delahunt4, Eva Compérat5, Jonathan I Epstein6, Peter Humphrey7, Mohammed Idrees8, Antonio Lopez-Beltran9, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi10, Gregor Mikuz11, Rodolfo Montironi12, Esther Oliva13, John Srigley14, Victor E Reuter15, Kiril Trpkov16, Thomas M Ulbright8, Murali Varma17, Clare Verrill18, Robert H Young13, Ming Zhou19, Lars Egevad20. 1. Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. Fundacio Puigvert-University Autonomous, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences and University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. 5. Hôpital La Pitié-Salpetrière, Paris, France. 6. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Yale School of Medicine, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA. 8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Indiana Pathology Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 9. Cordoba University Medical School, Cordoba, Spain. 10. Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 11. Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 12. Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy. 13. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 14. Department Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 15. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 16. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary and Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 17. University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. 18. Department of Cellular Pathology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 19. Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 20. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: The handling and reporting of testicular tumours is difficult due to their rarity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey developed by the European Network of Uro-Pathology (ENUP) and sent to its members and experts to assess the evaluation of testicular germ cell tumours. Twenty-five experts and 225 ENUP members replied. Areas of disagreement included immaturity in teratomas, reported by 32% of experts but 68% of ENUP. Although the presence of rete testis invasion was reported widely, the distinction between pagetoid and stromal invasion was made by 96% of experts but only 63% of ENUP. Immunohistochemistry was used in more than 50% of cases by 68% of ENUP and 12% of experts. Staging revealed the greatest areas of disagreement. Invasion of the tunica vaginalis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1 by 52% of experts and 67% of ENUP, but T2 by the remainder. Tumour invading the hilar adipose tissue adjacent to the epididymis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1: 40% of experts, 43% of ENUP; T2: 36% of experts, 30% of ENUP; and T3: 24% of experts, 27% of ENUP. CONCLUSIONS: There is remarkable consensus in many areas of testicular pathology. Significant areas of disagreement included staging and reporting of histological types, both of which have the potential to impact on therapy.
AIMS: The handling and reporting of testicular tumours is difficult due to their rarity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey developed by the European Network of Uro-Pathology (ENUP) and sent to its members and experts to assess the evaluation of testicular germ cell tumours. Twenty-five experts and 225 ENUP members replied. Areas of disagreement included immaturity in teratomas, reported by 32% of experts but 68% of ENUP. Although the presence of rete testis invasion was reported widely, the distinction between pagetoid and stromal invasion was made by 96% of experts but only 63% of ENUP. Immunohistochemistry was used in more than 50% of cases by 68% of ENUP and 12% of experts. Staging revealed the greatest areas of disagreement. Invasion of the tunica vaginalis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1 by 52% of experts and 67% of ENUP, but T2 by the remainder. Tumour invading the hilar adipose tissue adjacent to the epididymis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1: 40% of experts, 43% of ENUP; T2: 36% of experts, 30% of ENUP; and T3: 24% of experts, 27% of ENUP. CONCLUSIONS: There is remarkable consensus in many areas of testicular pathology. Significant areas of disagreement included staging and reporting of histological types, both of which have the potential to impact on therapy.
Authors: J Aparicio; P Maroto; X García del Muro; A Sánchez-Muñoz; J Gumà; M Margelí; A Sáenz; N Sagastibelza; D Castellano; J A Arranz; D Hervás; R Bastús; A Fernández-Aramburo; J Sastre; J Terrasa; M López-Brea; J Dorca; D Almenar; J Carles; A Hernández; J R Germà Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A Radtke; J-F Cremers; S Kliesch; S Riek; K Junker; S A Mohamed; P Anheuser; G Belge; K-P Dieckmann Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 4.553