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...

It has been 12 yr since the publication of the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumours of the prostate and bladder. During this time, significant new knowledge has been generated about the pathology and genetics of these tumours. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a newly recognized entity in the 2016 WHO classification. In most cases, it represents intraductal spread of aggressive prostatic carcinoma and should be separated from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. New acinar adenocarcinoma variants are microcystic adenocarcinoma and pleomorphic giant cell adenocarcinoma. Modifications to the Gleason grading system are incorporated into the 2016 WHO section on grading of prostate cancer, and it is recommended that the percentage of pattern 4 should be reported for Gleason score 7. The new WHO classification further recommends the recently developed prostate cancer grade grouping with five grade groups. For bladder cancer, the 2016 WHO classification continues to recommend the 1997 International Society of Urological Pathology grading classification. Newly described or better defined noninvasive urothelial lesions include urothelial dysplasia and urothelial proliferation of uncertain malignant potential, which is frequently identified in patients with a prior history of urothelial carcinoma. Invasive urothelial carcinoma with divergent differentiation refers to tumours with some percentage of "usual type" urothelial carcinoma combined with other morphologies. Pathologists should mention the percentage of divergent histologies in the pathology report. PATIENT SUMMARY Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a newly recognized entity in the 2016 World Health Organization classification. Better defined noninvasive urothelial lesions include urothelial dysplasia and urothelial proliferation of uncertain malignant potential. v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m j AbstractIt has been 12 yr since the publication of the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumours of the prostate and bladder. During this time, significant new knowledge has been generated about the pathology and genetics of these tumours.

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.

Among the neoplastic disorders, preinvasive, microinvasive, and poorly differentiated neoplasms received the most attention. Specific criteria were recommended and will be discussed. Transitions between neoplastic states were of particular concern. Preinvasive neoplasias of the mouse prostate were recognized as focal, atypical, and progressive lesions. These lesions were designated as mouse prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (mPIN). Some atypical lesions were identified in mouse models without evidence of progression to malignancy. The panel recommended that mPIN lesions not be given histological grades, but that mPIN be further classified as to the absence or presence of documented associated progression to invasive carcinoma. Criteria for recognizing microinvasion, for classification of invasive gland-forming adenocarcinomas, and for characterizing poorly differentiated tumors, including neuroendocrine carcinomas, were developed and are discussed. The uniform application of defined terminology is essential for correlating results between different laboratories and models. It is recommended that investigators use the Bar Harbor Classification system when characterizing new GEM models or when conducting experimental interventions that may alter the phenotype or natural history of lesion progression in existing models.