No abstract

BackgroundIn Sweden, human tissue samples obtained from diagnostic and surgical procedures have for decades been routinely stored in a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, form. Through linkage with nationwide registers, these samples are available for molecular studies to identify biomarkers predicting mortality even in slow-progressing prostate cancer. However, tissue fixation causes modifications of nucleic acids, making it challenging to extract high-quality nucleic acids from formalin fixated tissues.MethodsIn this study, the efficiency of five commercial nucleic acid extraction kits was compared on 30 prostate biopsies with normal histology, and the quantity and quality of the products were compared using spectrophotometry and Agilent’s BioAnalyzer. Student’s t-test’s and Bland-Altman analyses were performed in order to investigate differences in nucleic acid quantity and quality between the five kits. The best performing extraction kits were subsequently tested on an additional 84 prostate tumor tissues. A Spearman’s correlation test and linear regression analyses were performed in order to investigate the impact of tissue age and amount of tissue on nucleic acid quantity and quality.ResultsNucleic acids extracted with RNeasy® FFPE and QIAamp® DNA FFPE Tissue kit had the highest quantity and quality, and was used for extraction from 84 tumor tissues. Nucleic acids were successfully extracted from all biopsies, and the amount of tumor (in millimeter) was found to have the strongest association with quantity and quality of nucleic acids.ConclusionsTo conclude, this study shows that the choice of nucleic acid extraction kit affects the quantity and quality of extracted products. Furthermore, we show that extraction of nucleic acids from archival formalin-fixed prostate biopsies is possible, allowing molecular studies to be performed on this valuable sample collection.

Background The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear. Objective To evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction. Patients and Methods We conducted a case–control study nested among men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with non-metastatic PCa 1998–2015. We included 369 men who died from PCa (cases) and 369 men who did not (controls). Two uro-pathologists centrally re-reviewed biopsy ISUP 2014 Gleason grading, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern, comedonecrosis, perineural invasion, intraductal, ductal and mucinous carcinoma, percentage Gleason 4, inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Pre-2005 GS was back-transformed using i) information on cribriform pattern and/or poorly formed glands and ii) the diagnostic GS from the registry. Models were developed using Firth logistic regression and compared in terms of discrimination (AUC). Results The ISUP 2014 GS (AUC = 0.808) performed better than the pre-2005 GS when back-transformed using only cribriform pattern (AUC = 0.785) or both cribriform and poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.792), but not when back-transformed using only poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.800). Similarly, the ISUP 2014 GS performed better than the diagnostic GS (AUC = 0.808 vs 0.781). Comedonecrosis (AUC = 0.811), HGPIN (AUC = 0.810) and number of cores with ≥50% cancer (AUC = 0.810) predicted PCa death independently of the ISUP 2014 GS. Conclusion The Gleason Grading revisions have improved PCa death prediction, likely due to classifying cribriform patterns, rather than poorly formed glands, as Gleason 4. Comedonecrosis, HGPIN and number of cores with ≥50% cancer further improve PCa death discrimination slightly.

Virtual microscopy (VM) holds promise to reduce subjectivity as well as intra- and inter-observer variability for the histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. We evaluated (i) the repeatability (intra-observer agreement) and reproducibility (inter-observer agreement) of the 2014 Gleason grading system and other selected features using standard light microscopy (LM) and an internally developed VM system, and (ii) the interchangeability of LM and VM. Two uro-pathologists reviewed 413 cores from 60 Swedish men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer 1998–2014. Reviewer 1 performed two reviews using both LM and VM. Reviewer 2 performed one review using both methods. The intra- and inter-observer agreement within and between LM and VM were assessed using Cohen’s kappa and Bland and Altman’s limits of agreement. We found good repeatability and reproducibility for both LM and VM, as well as interchangeability between LM and VM, for primary and secondary Gleason pattern, Gleason Grade Groups, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern and comedonecrosis but not for the percentage of Gleason pattern 4. Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of VM compared to LM. The repeatability and reproducibility of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was poor regardless of method used warranting further investigation and improvement before it is used in clinical practice.