Immunohistochemical expression of prostatic antigens in adenocarcinoma and villous adenoma of the urinary bladder.

Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
The American journal of surgical pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 10/2008; 32(9):1322-6. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181656ca0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Adenocarcinomas of the bladder are rare, with the diagnosis dependent on exclusion of secondary involvement by direct extension or metastatic spread from other sites. The recent description of an unusual form of urothelial-type mucinous prostatic adenocarcinoma raises a novel differential diagnosis between adenocarcinomas of the prostate and bladder, and investigation into the utility of classic prostatic immunohistochemical antigens in bladder adenocarcinoma is warranted. We identified 37 primary infiltrating adenocarcinomas of the bladder, which included signet ring cell carcinomas (n=11), urachal adenocarcinomas (n=5), and enteric adenocarcinoma (n=21). Also included for comparison were 3 cases, each of bladder villous adenomas and bladder adenocarcinoma in situ. Tissue microarrays were constructed from each case, with each specimen represented by multiple 1.0-mm cores to assess for tumor protein heterogeneity. Immunohistochemistry for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific acid phosphatase (PSAP), P501S (prostein), and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) was performed, and moderate to strong immunoreactivity was considered a positive result. Of the 37 adenocarcinomas, all were negative for PSA and PSAP (0/37; 0%). In contrast, a minority of bladder adenocarcinomas was labeled with the prostate antigens P501S and PSMA. P501S showed moderate diffuse cytoplasmic staining in 4/37 cases (11%), including 3 enteric-type adenocarcinomas and 1 mucinous adenocarcinoma. Additionally, 1 case of adenocarcinoma in situ demonstrated diffuse cytoplasmic staining for P501S. The granular perinuclear staining pattern of P501S typically seen in prostatic adenocarcinoma was absent in all cases of bladder adenocarcinoma. PSMA showed diffuse cytoplasmic staining in 4/37 (11%) infiltrating adenocarcinomas (including 1 signet ring carcinoma and 3 enteric-type adenocarcinomas), and in 1 case of adenocarcinoma in situ. Membranous PSMA staining was evident in an additional 3 tumors, 1 urachal mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1 nonurachal mucinous and signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, and 1 nonurachal villous adenoma. In conclusion, although all cases of bladder adenocarcinoma examined were negative for PSA and PSAP, the surprising finding that a subset of invasive and in situ adenocarcinomas of the bladder demonstrated immunoreactivity for P501S and PSMA should warrant caution when using these markers in differentiating prostatic from bladder adenocarcinomas. The lack of granular perinuclear staining for P501S and the absence of membranous PSMA staining both favor a bladder adenocarcinoma, although rare cases of villous adenoma and adenocarcinoma did show PSMA membranous staining indistinguishable from that seen in prostate cancer. Although the novel antigens P501S and PSMA are fairly specific and more sensitive in the differential diagnosis of prostate and urothelial carcinoma, care must be taken when adenocarcinomas of the bladder are considered within this differential diagnosis.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of metastatic prostate carcinoma frequently requires the use of immunohistochemical adjuncts. Immunohistochemistry for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is commonly used for this purpose but can be of limited utility. Recently, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has been shown to be a promising marker for the identification of metastatic prostate carcinoma in surgical specimens. The utility of this marker has yet to be reported for cytology specimens. We sought to compare the sensitivities of PSMA and PSA immunohistochemistry and investigate the specificity of PSMA by utilizing cell block preparations from cytologic cases of metastatic prostate carcinoma (n = 19) and carcinomas of nonprostatic origin (n = 33). The sensitivity of PSMA immunohistochemistry was higher (16/19; 84%) in detecting metastatic prostate carcinomas than that of PSA immunohistochemistry (11/19; 58%). Strong, diffuse staining for PSMA was seen in 13 (81%) of 16 PSMA-positive cases whereas strong, diffuse staining for PSA was observed in six (55%) of 11 PSA-positive cases. Positivity for either PSMA or PSA was seen in 17 of 19 cases of metastatic prostate carcinoma for a combined sensitivity of 89%. PSMA immunohistochemistry was completely negative in 32 of 33 cytology cases of nonprostatic carcinomas. Therefore, the specificity of this marker was 97% in this study. In conclusion, our results indicate that PSMA is a highly sensitive and specific immunomarker for the detection of metastatic prostate carcinoma in cytology specimens. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2013; © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Diagnostic Cytopathology 10/2013; 42(7). DOI:10.1002/dc.23075 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following are the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommendations for the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in prostate specimens. Either high-molecular weight cytokeratin (34βE12 or CK5/6 or others) or p63 or a combination of the 2 with AMACR either in a double or triple cocktail is recommended for the workup of small foci of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate (PCa). ERG is optional as it is present in only 40% to 50% of prostate cancers and also positive in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. In the setting of obvious carcinoma or benign glands, there is no justification to do basal cell stains and AMACR. If there is a Gleason score of 3+4=7 or a higher-grade cancer on at least 1 part, the workup of other parts with an atypical focus suspicious for Gleason score 3+3=6 cancer is not recommended. In the setting of Gleason score 4+3 or 4+4=8 cancer on at least 1 part, the extent of high-grade cancer could affect clinical treatment such that workup of other atypical possible high-grade cancer foci is justified. In the setting of Gleason score 4+3 or higher-grade cancer on at least 1 part, given that intraductal carcinoma in the vast majority of cases is considered extension of high-grade cancer into prostatic ducts and acini, it is not recommended in the setting of definitive invasive high-grade cancer that workup of additional cribriform lesions be pursued. In the setting of Gleason score 3+3 on at least 1 part, the number of positive cores and/or their location could possibly affect subsequent therapy in terms of suitability for active surveillance or focal therapy, such that unless one knows with certainty that it would not affect therapy, it is justified to perform an IHC workup of additional atypical foci. In the differential diagnosis of high-grade PCa versus urothelial carcinoma (UC), the primary option is to use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a first test to identify PCa and GATA3 to identify UC. If GATA3 is not available, then HMWCK and p63 can be used. If the tumor is PSA positive with intense staining and HMWCK and p63 negative, the findings are diagnostic of PCa. If the tumor is equivocal/weak/negative for PSA and negative/focal for p63 and HMWCK, then one needs to perform staining for P501S, NKX3.1, and GATA3. Some experts also include PAP in this second round of staining. If the tumor is negative for PSA and diffusely strongly positive for p63 and HMWCK, the findings are diagnostic of UC. If the tumor is negative for PSA and moderately to strongly positive for GATA3, it is diagnostic of UC. Laboratories should be encouraged to use GATA3 for UC and add P501S and NKX3.1 as prostate markers in addition to PSA, p63, and HMWCK. If GATA3, p501S, and NKX3.1 are not available in equivocal cases, the case should be sent out for consultation to laboratories with these antibodies. The article also covers the use of IHC in: (1) high-grade PCa versus bladder adenocarcinoma; (2) prostatic small cell carcinoma versus high-grade PCa; (3) metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary: rule out PCa; (4) nonspecific granulomatous prostatitis/xanthoma versus high-grade PCa; (5) adult prostate sarcoma versus sarcomatoid PCa; (6) colorectal adenocarcinoma versus high-grade PCa; and (7) prognostic IHC markers.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to differentiate between prostate adenocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma among Egyptian patients by immunohistochemical methods. Two groups of patients were used: urothelial group, consisted of 9 cystitis, 21 transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) and 5 urinary bladder mucoid adenocarcinoma (MAC) and prostatic group, consisted of 9 nodular prostatic hyperplasia (NPH) and 21 prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). H–E stained sections were performed to confirm the diagnosis and evaluate the histopathological characteristics of the tumor. Immunohistochemical techniques were used for detection of P63, CK7, CK10 and PSA. The results showed that in urothelial group, positive p63and CK7 immunostaining was observed in all cases of cystitis, transitional cell carcinoma and urinary bladder mucoid adenocarcinoma. All cases of cystitis, transitional cell carcinoma and urinary bladder mucoid adenocarcinoma were CK10 and PSA negative. In prostate group, positive p63 immunostaining was observed in all cases of NPH and in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Positive CK7 immunostaining was observed in all cases of NPH while all cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma were CK7 negative. Positive CK10 immunostaining was observed in all cases of NPH. In prostatic adenocarcinoma, 11 cases were CK10 positive and 10 cases were CK10 negative. All cases of NPH and prostatic adenocarcinoma were PSA positive. In conclusion, the result of the present work proved that p63 and CK7 can be used along with other markers to differentiate between adenocarcinoma of prostate and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Also, CK10 and PSA are useful for distinguishing prostate cancer from urothelial carcinoma.
    Biomedecine [?] Pharmacotherapy 07/2014; 68(6). DOI:10.1016/j.biopha.2014.08.003 · 2.11 Impact Factor