Yuri Tolkach1, Stefan Thomann2, Glen Kristiansen1. 1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 2. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: Conventional morphology of prostate cancer considers only the two-dimensional (2D) architecture of the tumour. Our aim was to examine the feasibility of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of tumour morphology based on multiple consecutive histological sections and to decipher relevant features of prostate cancer architecture. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-five consecutive histological sections (5 μm) of a typical prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7) were immunostained (pan-cytokeratin) and scanned for further 3D reconstructions with fiji/imagej software. The main findings related to the prostate cancer architecture in this case were: (i) continuity of all glands, with the tumour being an integrated system, even in Gleason pattern 4 with poorly formed glands-no short-range migration of cells by Gleason pattern 4 (poorly formed glands); (ii) no repeated interconnections between the glands, with a tumour building a tree-like branched structure with very 'plastic' branches (maximal depth of investigation 375 μm); (iii) very stark compartmentalisation of the tumour related to extensive branching, the coexistence of independent terminal units of such branches in one 2D slice explaining intratumoral heterogeneity; (iv) evidence of a craniocaudal growth direction in interglandular regions of the prostate and for a lateromedial growth direction in subcapsular posterolateral regions; and (v) a 3D architecture-based description of Gleason pattern 4 with poorly formed glands, and its continuum with Gleason pattern 3. CONCLUSIONS: Consecutive histological sections provide high-quality material for 3D reconstructions of the tumour architecture, with excellent resolution. The reconstruction of multiple regions in this typical case of a Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 tumour provides insights into relevant aspects of tumour growth, the continuity of Gleason patterns 3 and 4, and tumour heterogeneity.
AIMS: Conventional morphology of prostate cancer considers only the two-dimensional (2D) architecture of the tumour. Our aim was to examine the feasibility of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of tumour morphology based on multiple consecutive histological sections and to decipher relevant features of prostate cancer architecture. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-five consecutive histological sections (5 μm) of a typical prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7) were immunostained (pan-cytokeratin) and scanned for further 3D reconstructions with fiji/imagej software. The main findings related to the prostate cancer architecture in this case were: (i) continuity of all glands, with the tumour being an integrated system, even in Gleason pattern 4 with poorly formed glands-no short-range migration of cells by Gleason pattern 4 (poorly formed glands); (ii) no repeated interconnections between the glands, with a tumour building a tree-like branched structure with very 'plastic' branches (maximal depth of investigation 375 μm); (iii) very stark compartmentalisation of the tumour related to extensive branching, the coexistence of independent terminal units of such branches in one 2D slice explaining intratumoral heterogeneity; (iv) evidence of a craniocaudal growth direction in interglandular regions of the prostate and for a lateromedial growth direction in subcapsular posterolateral regions; and (v) a 3D architecture-based description of Gleason pattern 4 with poorly formed glands, and its continuum with Gleason pattern 3. CONCLUSIONS: Consecutive histological sections provide high-quality material for 3D reconstructions of the tumour architecture, with excellent resolution. The reconstruction of multiple regions in this typical case of a Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 tumour provides insights into relevant aspects of tumour growth, the continuity of Gleason patterns 3 and 4, and tumour heterogeneity.
Authors: Weisi Xie; Nicholas P Reder; Can Koyuncu; Patrick Leo; Sarah Hawley; Hongyi Huang; Chenyi Mao; Nadia Postupna; Soyoung Kang; Robert Serafin; Gan Gao; Qinghua Han; Kevin W Bishop; Lindsey A Barner; Pingfu Fu; Jonathan L Wright; C Dirk Keene; Joshua C Vaughan; Andrew Janowczyk; Adam K Glaser; Anant Madabhushi; Lawrence D True; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Orestis L Katsamenis; Michael Olding; Jane A Warner; David S Chatelet; Mark G Jones; Giacomo Sgalla; Bennie Smit; Oliver J Larkin; Ian Haig; Luca Richeldi; Ian Sinclair; Peter M Lackie; Philipp Schneider Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Esther I Verhoef; Wiggert A van Cappellen; Johan A Slotman; Gert-Jan Kremers; Patricia C Ewing-Graham; Adriaan B Houtsmuller; Martin E van Royen; Geert J L H van Leenders Journal: Histopathology Date: 2019-04-21 Impact factor: 5.087