Partial Atrophy on Prostate Needle Biopsy Cores: A Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Study
Department of Pathology, The John Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.The American journal of surgical pathology (Impact Factor: 5.15). 07/2008; 32(6):851-7. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31815a0508
Partial atrophy is the most common benign mimicker of prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Of 3916 prostate needle core biopsy cases received in our consultation service over a period of 3 months (March 1, 2007 to May 31, 2007), 170 cases (4.3%) with partial atrophy were diagnosed as atypical glands by outside pathologists and prospectively identified. We supplemented our material with 108 cases of partial atrophy sent to our consultation service in 2006 from a single institution, which frequently uses a triple cocktail stain [p63, high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK), alpha-methyl acyl-Coa racemase (AMACR)]. The morphologic features of the 278 cases and immunohistochemistry of 236 cases (198 with prostate cocktail and 38 with only basal cell makers) were analyzed. Forty-eight of 278 (17.3%) partial atrophy cases were mixed with postatrophic hyperplasia. Enlarged nuclei were visible in 43/278 (15.5%) cases, with prominent nucleoli seen in 58/278 (20.9%) cases (30 cases associated with nuclear enlargement). Of 198 cases with a prostatic cocktail stain, 48 (24.2%) had a cancer pattern for both basal cells and AMACR (p63-, HMWCK-, and AMACR+), 14 (7.1%) had a cancer pattern for basal cells (p63-, HMWCK-, and AMACR-), 89 (44.9%) had a cancer pattern for AMACR (p63+, HMWCK+, and AMACR+), and 47 (23.7%) had a totally benign pattern (p63+, HMWCK+, and AMACR-). Of the 198 cases using the cocktail stain, 136 (68.7%) had positive basal cell staining. The percentage of basal cells labeled with the combination of p63/HMWCK was: <5% in 42 (21.2%) cases, 5% to 75% in 58 (29.3%) cases, and >75% in 36 (18.2%) cases. An additional 38 cases immunostained only for p63 and/or HMWCK was negative in 2 (5.2%) cases, <5% (13.1%) in 5 cases, 5% to 75% in 19 (50%) cases, and >75% in 12 (31.6%) cases. In conclusion, partial atrophy is a benign mimicker of adenocarcinoma both as a result of its routine morphologic features and its immunohistochemical profile. Recognition of the classic morphology of partial atrophy on routine hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections is critical to avoid misdiagnosing partial atrophy as adenocarcinoma.
Article: Study too narrow
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We determined the value of mandatory second opinion pathology review to interpret prostate needle biopsy before radical prostatectomy. In all cases referred to our institution for radical prostatectomy in 1 year we compared pathological parameters in original and reviewed pathology reports, including benign, atypical or malignant diagnosis, final Gleason score, positive core number, core highest cancer percent and perineural invasion or extraprostatic extension. A major Gleason score discrepancy was defined as a change to a different risk category (6, 7 and 8-10). We defined a significant difference in the highest percent of cancer in a core as 30% or greater. Of the 855 cases originally diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma cancer was confirmed in 844 (98.8%) by needle biopsy and prostatectomy, of which 9 (1%) were atypical and 2 (0.2%) were benign upon review. A major discrepancy in Gleason score was present in 124 cases (14.7%), of which 57 (46.0%) were upgraded and 67 (54%) were downgraded. Of cases with a final Gleason score of 6, 8.4% were originally diagnosed as 7 (7.8%) or 8-10 (0.6%), 21% with a final score of 7 had an original score of 6 (13.2%) or 8-10 (7.8%) and 21 of 61 (34%) with a score of 8-10 were originally diagnosed as 7 or less. There were 80 cases (64.5%) of disagreement between scores 6 and 7. Of the 777 cases with the positive core number in each report 71 (9.1%) had discrepancies. After review the positive core number was higher in 45 cases (63.4%) and lower in 26 (36.6%). We noted a significant difference in the highest cancer percent in a core in 76 of 844 evaluable cases (9%) in which cancer was originally underestimated. In 60 of 76 cases (78.9%) cancer discontinuously involved the core on review. Review revealed perineural invasion in 138 of 844 cases (16.3%) that was not originally reported in 37 of 138 (26.8%). In 4 cases review showed extraprostatic extension on needle biopsy. Compared to a smaller study more than 10 years ago at our institution the rate of unconfirmed cancer was identical (1.2%). To our knowledge this is the first study to analyze concordance upon review of the number of positive cores and maximum percent positive in a core (each discrepancy 9%). In a few cases mandatory second opinion on prostate needle biopsy results in significant differences that may affect therapy.The Journal of urology 07/2010; 184(1):126-30. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.021 · 4.47 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We evaluated the usefulness of double immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin (CK)5/6 and alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) applied sequentially on 1 slide by assessing 223 foci in 110 consecutive prostate specimens. Double-chromogen reaction was used to visualize the antibodies: brown for CK5/6 and red for AMACR. Staining was scored as diffuse, focal, or negative. To establish the diagnosis, CK5/6 and AMACR were correlated with the morphologic features. All cancers lacked CK5/6 staining (100% specificity). AMACR showed diffuse or focal positivity in cancer, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atypia in 96.8% (120/124), 85% (22/26), and 80% (16/20) of cases, respectively. In atypical cases, diagnosis was because of non-immunohistochemical staining reasons in 80% of cases. In adenosis (n = 14), AMACR was diffusely positive in 4 cases (29%). Double immunohistochemical staining for CK5/6 and AMACR is a simple assay to perform and may be used as an alternative to antibody cocktails for routine evaluation of problematic prostate specimens.American Journal of Clinical Pathology 09/2009; 132(2):211-20; quiz 307. DOI:10.1309/AJCPGFJP83IXZEUR · 2.51 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.