Lars Egevad

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

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed.

The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system

In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simplified the number of grading categories from Gleason scores 2 to 10, with even more permutations based on different pattern combinations, to Grade Groups 1 to 5; (3) the lowest grade is 1 not 6 as in Gleason, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of indolent cancer; and (4) the current modified Gleason grading, which forms the basis for the new grade groups, bears little resemblance to the original Gleason system. The new grades would, for the foreseeable future, be used in conjunction with the Gleason system [ie. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1)]. The new grading system and the terminology Grade Groups 1-5 have also been accepted by the World Health Organization for the 2016 edition of Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.

THE SEXTANT PROTOCOL FOR ULTRASOUND-GUIDED CORE BIOPSIES OF THE PROSTATE UNDERESTIMATES THE PRESENCE OF CANCER

OBJECTIVES The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the sextant biopsy protocol compared with a more extensive procedure for the detection of prostate cancer and to define a biopsy model with the minimal number of biopsies necessary to maintain diagnostic accuracy. METHODS A total of 512 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer were examined with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and underwent TRUS-guided core biopsy. All patients had 8 or 10 standardized biopsy samples taken, with the number depending on the size of the gland. Additional biopsy samples were taken from hypoechoic or hyperechoic lesions located outside the predetermined location for the standardized biopsies (ie, target biopsies). The sensitivity of the detection of cancer for different combinations of biopsy samples was analyzed and compared with that of our model with 8 to 10 biopsies. RESULTS In all, 276 cancers were detected, of which 88 (32%) had an isoechoic appearance. Sensitivity was 59% for focal lesions detected by TRUS, 85% to 97% for different combinations of systematic biopsy samples, and 93% to 98% for a combination of systematic and target biopsy samples. The sensitivity for the standard sextant protocol was 85%. By adding target biopsies, the sensitivity increased to 93%. CONCLUSIONS The standard sextant protocol leaves 15% of cancers undetected compared with results obtained from a more extensive biopsy procedure. By combining systematic and target sampling, the sensitivity increases; however, a major concern is that the clinical importance of cancers detected by multiple biopsies needs to be evaluated.

A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

BACKGROUND Despite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, 8-10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are often considered the same prognostic group. OBJECTIVE To verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Between 2005 and 2014, 20,845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3+4 versus 4+3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five-grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death. CONCLUSIONS The new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.

CD4+CD25high T Cells Are Enriched in the Tumor and Peripheral Blood of Prostate Cancer Patients

In this study, we investigated whether CD4+CD25high regulatory T cells (Treg) are increased in the tumor tissue and peripheral blood of early-stage prostate cancer patients undergoing prostatectomy. We show that the prevalence of CD4+CD25high T cells inside the prostate was significantly higher in the tumor compared with benign tissue from the same prostate. Furthermore, the frequency of CD4+CD25high T cells in peripheral blood was significantly higher in prostate cancer patients compared with normal donors. A proportion of the CD4+CD25high T cells was also shown to be glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor, ICOS, and FOXP3 positive. Moreover, CD4+CD25+ T cells from blood and supernatants from cultured prostate tumor tissue samples exhibited immunosuppressive function in vitro. Furthermore, supernatants from cultured prostate tissue samples and prostate cancer ascites fluid induced migration of CD4+CD25+ T cells and were shown to contain the regulatory T cell chemokine CCL22 by ELISA. Our findings indicate that Tregs are an important cellular component of early-stage prostate tumors, and thus new therapeutic strategies aimed at inhibition or depletion of Tregs may improve prostate cancer immunotherapy.

International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: Surgical margins

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the ‘capsular’ margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.

Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens

This paper, based on the activity of the Morphology-Based Prognostic Factors Committee of the 2004 World Health Organization-sponsored International Consultation, describes various methods of handling radical prostatectomy specimens for both routine clinical use and research purposes. The correlation between radical prostatectomy findings and postoperative failure is discussed in detail. This includes issues relating to pelvic lymph node involvement, detected both at the time of frozen section and in permanent sections. Issues of seminal vesicle invasion, including its definition, routes of invasion and relationship to prognosis, are covered in detail. The definition, terminology and incidence of extra-prostatic extension are elucidated, along with its prognostic significance relating to location and extent. Margins of resection are covered in terms of their definition, the etiology, incidence and sites of positive margins, the use of frozen sections to assess the margins and the relationship between margin positivity and prognosis. Issues relating to grade within the radical prostatectomy specimen are covered in depth, including novel ways of reporting Gleason grade and the concept of tertiary Gleason patterns. Tumor volume, tumor location, vascular invasion and perineural invasion are the final variables discussed relating to the prognosis of radical prostatectomy specimens. The use of multivariate analysis to predict progression is discussed, together with proposed modifications to the TNM system. Finally, biomarkers to predict progression following radical prostatectomy are described, including DNA ploidy, microvessel density, Ki-67, neuroendocrine differentiation, p53, p21, p27, Bcl-2, Her-2/neu, E-cadherin, CD44, retinoblastoma proteins, apoptotic index, androgen receptor status, expression of prostate-specific antigen and prostatic-specific acid phosphatase and nuclear morphometry.

A phase I trial of DNA vaccination with a plasmid expressing prostate-specific antigen in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a serine protease secreted at low levels by normal luminal epithelial cells of the prostate and in significantly higher levels by prostate cancer cells. Therefore, PSA is a potential target for various immunotherapeutical approaches against prostate cancer. DNA vaccination has been investigated as immunotherapy for infectious diseases in patients and for specific treatment of cancer in certain animal models. In animal studies, we have demonstrated that vaccination with plasmid vector pVAX/PSA results in PSA-specific cellular response and protection against tumour challenge. The purpose of the trial was to evaluate the safety, feasibility and biological efficacy of pVAX/PSA vaccine in the clinic. A phase I trial of pVAX/PSA, together with cytokine granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) (Molgramostim) and IL-2 (Aldesleukin) as vaccine adjuvants, was carried out in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. To evaluate the biologically active dose, the vaccine was administered during five cycles in doses of 100, 300 and 900 μg, with three patients in each cohort. Eight patients were evaluable. A PSA-specific cellular immune response, measured by IFN-γ production against recombinant PSA protein, and a rise in anti-PSA IgG were detected in two of three patients after vaccination in the highest dose cohort. A decrease in the slope of PSA was observed in the two patients exhibiting IFN-γ production to PSA. No adverse effects (WHO grade >2) were observed in any dose cohort. We demonstrate that DNA vaccination with a PSA-coding plasmid vector, given with GM-CSF and IL-2 to patients with prostate cancer, is safe and in doses of 900 μg the vaccine can induce cellular and humoral immune responses against PSA protein.

International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland

Authors John R. Srigley, MD, FCAP* Department of Laboratory Medicine, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Peter A. Humphrey, MD, PhD, FCAP* Department of Pathology, Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri Mahul B. Amin, MD, FCAP* Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California Sam S. Chang, MD Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee Lars Egevad, MD Department of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Jonathan I. Epstein, MD Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland David J. Grignon, MD Department of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana James M. McKiernan, MD Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York Rodolfo Montironi, MD, FRCPath Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, University of Ancona School of Medicine, Ancona, Italy Andrew A. Renshaw, MD Department of Pathology, Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, Florida Victor E. Reuter, MD Pathology Department, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York Thomas M. Wheeler, MD, FCAP Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas Ming Zhou, MD, PhD, FCAP† Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York For the Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists