The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumor...

This WHO/ISUP system is an attempt to develop as broad a consensus as possible in the classification of urothelial neoplasms, building upon earlier works and classification systems. It is meant to serve as a springboard for future studies that will help refine this classification, thus enabling us to provide better correlation of these lesions with their biologic behavior using uniform terminology.

Mutations in the mtDNA have been found to fulfill all of the criteria expected for pathogenic mutations causing prostate cancer. Focusing on the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene, we found that 11-12% of all prostate cancer patients harbored COI mutations that altered conserved amino acids (mean conservation index ‫؍‬ 83%), whereas <2% of no-cancer controls and 7.8% of the general population had COI mutations, the latter altering less conserved amino acids (conservation index ‫؍‬ 71%). Four conserved prostate cancer COI mutations were found in multiple independent patients on different mtDNA backgrounds. Three other tumors contained heteroplasmic COI mutations, one of which created a stop codon. This latter tumor also contained a germ-line ATP6 mutation. Thus, both germ-line and somatic mtDNA mutations contribute to prostate cancer. Many tumors have been found to produce increased reactive oxygen species (ROS), and mtDNA mutations that inhibit oxidative phosphorylation can increase ROS production and thus contribute to tumorigenicity. To determine whether mutant tumors had increased ROS and tumor growth rates, we introduced the pathogenic mtDNA ATP6 T8993G mutation into the PC3 prostate cancer cell line through cybrid transfer and tested for tumor growth in nude mice. The resulting mutant (T8993G) cybrids were found to generate tumors that were 7 times larger than the wild-type (T8993T) cybrids, whereas the wild-type cybrids barely grew in the mice. The mutant tumors also generated significantly more ROS. Therefore, mtDNA mutations do play an important role in the etiology of prostate cancer.cybrid ͉ oxidative phosphorylation ͉ inherited predisposition