Analysis of incidental prostate acinar adenocarcinoma: a single-center retrospective study

Year 2024, EARLY ONLINE, 1 - 8

Berna Eriten , Meryem Yüvrük , Mihriban Gürbüzel , Çiğdem Dicle Arıcan , Orhun Sinanoğlu

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.1566088

Abstract

Objective: Our study was conducted in a single center to evaluate the characteristics of prostate acinar adenocarcinoma.

Methods: A retrospective archive search was conducted between January 1, 2018 and September 1, 2024, and 900 prostate transurethral resection (TUR) and 127 open prostatectomy materials were examined. A total of 43 TUR and 9 open prostatectomy materials were found to have prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma.

Results: The ages of the patients were between 51-90. Gleason scores ranged from 3+3:6 to 5+5:10. In immunohistochemical analyses, Alpha methylacyl CoA racemase (AMACR) positivity and p63 negativity were prominent as characteristic findings. Lymphovascular invasion was rarely observed, while perineural invasion was detected more frequently.

Conclusions: The importance of histopathological and immunohistochemical features in determining the diagnostic and prognostic factors of prostate acinar adenocarcinoma was investigated in our study. This study may contribute to the literature on prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment strategies and may provide contributions for future research.

Keywords

Prostate acinar adenocarcinoma, Gleason score, Prostate specific antigen, immunohistochemistry

References

• 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.
• 2. Anract J, Klein C, Pinar U, Rouprêt M, Barry Delongchamps N, Robert G. Incidental Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Predictive Model. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.08.009.
• 3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
• 4. Kensler KH, Johnson R, Morley F, et al. Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024;116(1):34-52. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad193.
• 5. Rao BV, Soni S, Kulkarni B, et al. Grossing and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens: An evidence-based approach. Indian J Cancer. 2023;60(4):449-457. doi: 10.4103/ijc.ijc_1550_21.
• 6. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2024;86(2):148-163. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027.
• 7. Dahiya M, Yadav M, Sharma P, Kumar A. Current pathophysiology, treatment, and future perspective for prostate cancer. In: Sobti RC, Ganguly NK, Kumar R, eds. Handbook of Oncobiology: From Basic to Clinical Sciences. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2023:1-22. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-2196-6_22-1.
• 8. Gillessen S, Bossi A, Davis ID, et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022. Eur J Cancer. 2023;185:178-215. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.02.018.
• 9. Mohanty SK, Lobo A, Cheng L. The 2022 revision of the World Health Organization classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs: advances and challenges. Hum Pathol. 2023;136:123-143. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2022.08.006.
• 10. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023;21(10):1067-1096. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0050.
• 11. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):917-928. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.
• 12. Lotan TL, Tomlins SA, Bismar TA, et al. Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers. I. Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 Jul;44(7):e15-e29. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001450.
• 13. Warrick JI, Knowles MA, Yves A, et al. Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference On Molecular Pathology Of Urogenital Cancers. II. Molecular Pathology of Bladder Cancer: Progress and Challenges. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44(7):30-46. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001453.
• 14. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250-266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026.
• 15. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17(1):41-61. doi: 10.1038/s41585-019-0212-4.
• 16. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379-3385. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764.
• 17. Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers. Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):560-569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018.
• 18. Zhu M, Sali R, Baba F, Khasawneh H, et al. Artificial intelligence in pathologic diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of prostate cancer. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2024;12(4):200-215. doi: 10.62347/JSAE9732.
• 19. Egevad L, Micoli C, Samaratunga H, et al. Prognosis of Gleason Score 9-10 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in Needle Biopsies: A Nationwide Population-based Study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(2):213-221. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.002.
• 20. Surintrspanont J, Zhou M. Prostate Pathology: What is New in the 2022 WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors? Pathologica. 2022;115(1):41-56. doi: 10.32074/1591-951X-822.
• 21. Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(10):908-920. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852.
• 22. Korevaar S, Tennakoon R, Page M, et al. Incidental detection of prostate cancer with computed tomography scans. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7956. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86972-y.
• 23. Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(9):1119-1134. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011.
• 24. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):100-109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2.
• 25. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1079-1092. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054.
• 26. Baba H, Sakamoto S, Zhao X, et al. Tumor Location and a Tumor Volume over 2.8 cc Predict the Prognosis for Japanese Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(23):5823. doi: 10.3390/cancers14235823.
• 27. Nicolas Mottet, Roderick C.N. van den Bergh, et al. EAU Guidelines 2022. Eur Urol. 2022;82(4):399-410. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.022.
• 28. Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, et al. Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):357-368. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008.
• 29. Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study. BMJ. 2013;346:f2023. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2023.
• 30. Horwich A, Hugosson J, de Reijke T, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Consensus Conference Guidelines 2012. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(5):1141-1162. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds624.
• 31. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, Robinson D, Bratt O, Stattin P. Uptake of Active Surveillance for Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1393-1398. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3600.
• 32. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272-277. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192.
• 33. Iczkowski KA, Egevad L, Ma J, Harding-Jackson N, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: interobserver reproducibility survey of 39 urologic pathologists. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2014;18(6):333-342. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.08.010.
• 34. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4(4):CD012663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2.
• 35. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.