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

[1]  Harlan I. Firminger,et al.  Atlas of tumor pathology , 1954 .

[2]  D. Gleason,et al.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. , 1974, The Journal of urology.

[3]  H. Cockrill,et al.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1987, The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society.

[4]  P. Scardino,et al.  The Mechanisms and Prognostic Significance of Seminal Vesicle Involvement by Prostate Cancer , 1993, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[5]  A S Whittemore,et al.  Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer , 1993, Cancer.

[6]  M. Toublanc,et al.  Systematic biopsies accurately predict extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy. , 1994, Urology.

[7]  M. Kattan,et al.  Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[8]  D. Bostwick,et al.  The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[9]  H. Schmid,et al.  Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1‐T2 prostate carcinoma? , 1996 .

[10]  H. Schmid,et al.  Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1-T2 prostate carcinoma? , 1996, Cancer.

[11]  A. Partin,et al.  Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[12]  J. Epstein,et al.  Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[13]  R T Vollmer,et al.  Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. , 1997, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[14]  M. Kattan,et al.  Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. , 1998, Human pathology.

[15]  A. Haese*,et al.  Incidence of positive surgical margins after biopsy-selected nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. , 1998, Urology.

[16]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Correlation with extraprostatic extension at resection. , 1999, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients. , 1999, American journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  O. Yossepowitch,et al.  Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: positive margins or advanced T4 disease? , 2000, Urology.

[19]  C. Pan,et al.  Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. , 2001, Human pathology.

[20]  A. Partin,et al.  Influence of biopsy perineural invasion on long-term biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. , 2002, Urology.

[21]  C. Compton,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , 2002, Springer New York.

[22]  M. Rubin,et al.  Prostate cancer involving the bladder neck: recurrence-free survival and implications for AJCC staging modification. American Joint Committee on Cancer. , 2002, Urology.

[23]  S. Freedland,et al.  Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[24]  P. Humphrey Tumors of the Prostate Gland, Seminal Vesicles, Male Urethra, and Penis , 2003 .

[25]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Multiple Measures of Carcinoma Extent Versus Perineural Invasion in Prostate Needle Biopsy Tissue in Prediction of Pathologic Stage in a Screening Population , 2003, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[26]  M. Kattan,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for carcinoma of the prostate , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[27]  T. Tsuzuki,et al.  Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. , 2004, Urology.

[28]  V. Freeman,et al.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer: level of concordance between pathologists at the University Hospital of the West Indies. , 2004, American journal of clinical pathology.

[29]  M. Terris,et al.  Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  R Montironi,et al.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Contemporary approach. , 2005, Pathologica.

[31]  Sten Nilsson,et al.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[32]  P. Humphrey,et al.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in needle biopsy as risk factor for detection of adenocarcinoma: current level of risk in screening population. , 2005, Urology.

[33]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[36]  J. Epstein,et al.  Widespread High-grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia on Prostatic Needle Biopsy: A Significant Likelihood of Subsequently Diagnosed Adenocarcinoma , 2006, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[37]  J. Srigley Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[38]  J. Epstein,et al.  Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[39]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[40]  Scott H. Kurtzman,et al.  AJCC cancer staging atlas , 2006 .

[41]  M. Kattan,et al.  Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[42]  M. Rubin,et al.  A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. , 2007, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[43]  D. Song,et al.  Perineural invasion affects biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy. , 2007, Urology.

[44]  A. Renshaw,et al.  PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. , 2007, JAMA.

[45]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. , 2007, Urology.

[46]  J. Srigley,et al.  Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[47]  H. Levin,et al.  Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[48]  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 , 2010 .

[49]  A. Partin,et al.  The significance of a positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy: the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 designation is not warranted. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[50]  A. Partin,et al.  Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. , 2010, Urology.

[51]  J. Srigley,et al.  Is high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? , 2010, Pathology.

[52]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[53]  B. Trock,et al.  Should Intervening Benign Tissue Be Included in the Measurement of Discontinuous Foci of Cancer on Prostate Needle Biopsy? Correlation With Radical Prostatectomy Findings , 2011, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[54]  B. Delahunt,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[55]  Liang Cheng,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins , 2011, Modern Pathology.