Prostat Biyopsilerinde Histopatolojik Değerlendirme
Özet
Prostat kanseri tanısında histopatolojik değerlendirme altın standart olup, biyopsi örneklerinin analizi hastalık yönetiminde kritik önem taşır. Normal prostat histolojisi sekretuar, bazal ve nöroendokrin hücrelerden oluşur; lümende zamanla korpora amilasea yapıları gözlenebilir. Benign Prostat Hiperplazisi (BPH), ileri yaş erkeklerde glandüler ve stromal elemanların proliferasyonuyla karakterize yaygın bir hastalıktır. Yüksek Dereceli Prostatik İntraepitelyal Neoplazi (HGPIN), en olası kanser öncü lezyonu kabul edilir. Prostat adenokarsinomlarının çoğunluğunu asiner yapılar oluşturur. Malignite tanısında nükleer atipi ve makronükleol varlığının yanı sıra perinöral invazyon, kollajenöz mikronodüller ve glomerülasyon gibi spesifik kriterler ile intraluminal müsin ve kristaloidler gibi minör bulgular değerlendirilir. Tümörün biyolojik davranışını ve prognozunu belirlemek amacıyla, nükleer özellikler yerine yapısal patörnlere dayanan ve 1'den 5'ye kadar derecelendirilen Gleason Skorlama Sistemi kullanılır; en sık ve ikinci sık görülen patörnlerin toplamıyla elde edilen skorlar prognostik derece gruplarına ayrılır. Adenozis, atrofi ve prostatit gibi benign lezyonlar karsinomu taklit edebileceğinden, hematoksilen eozin boyamasının yetersiz kaldığı şüpheli durumlarda immünohistokimyasal incelemeye başvurulur. Bu doğrultuda, bazal hücreleri gösteren yüksek molekül ağırlıklı sitokeratin (YMAS) ve p63 ile malignitede pozitifleşen AMACR ve ERG belirteçleri kullanılırken; PSA, PSAP ve NKX3.1 ise metastatik odaklarda tümörün prostat kaynaklı olduğunu doğrulamak için tercih edilir.
Histopathological evaluation remains the gold standard in prostate cancer diagnosis, making the analysis of biopsy specimens critical for disease management. Normal prostate histology consists of secretory, basal, and neuroendocrine cells, where corpora amylacea structures may form in the lumens over time. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease in elderly men characterized by the proliferation of glandular and stromal elements. High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (HGPIN) is considered the most likely precursor to cancer. The majority of prostate adenocarcinomas are acinar types. In malignant diagnosis, along with nuclear atypia and prominent nucleoli, specific criteria such as perineural invasion, collagenous micronodules, and glomerulations are evaluated alongside minor findings like intraluminal mucin and crystalloids. To determine tumor biological behavior and prognosis, the Gleason Scoring System, graded from 1 to 5 based purely on structural patterns rather than nuclear features, is utilized; the sum of the primary and secondary patterns categorizes cases into prognostic grade groups. Since benign lesions like adenosis, atrophy, and prostatitis can mimic carcinoma, immunohistochemical analysis is employed when hematoxylin-eosin staining is inconclusive. Accordingly, basal cell markers like high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWK) and p63, alongside AMACR and ERG which become positive in malignancy, are used; whereas PSA, PSAP, and NKX3.1 are preferred to confirm a prostatic origin in metastatic foci.
Referanslar
Bostwick DG, Hull D, Ma J, et al. Nonneoplastic diseaseof the prostate. In: David G. Bostwick LC, editor. Urologic Surgical Pathology 3ed: Elsevier Inc.; 2014. p. 357-360.
Epstein JI, Netto GJ. Prostat Biyopsilerinin Yorumu. Epstein JI, editor. Nobel Tıp Kitabevi: LWW; 2016.
Deering RE, Bigler SA, King J, et al. Morphometric quantitation of stromain human benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1994;44(1):64-70.
Doehring CB, Sanda MG, Partin AW, et al. Histopathologic characterization of hereditary benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1996;48(4):650-653.
Parsons JK. Modifiable risk factors for benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms: new approaches to old problems. The Journal of urology. 2007;178(2):395-401.
Leav I, McNeal JE, Ho S-M, et al. α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S) expression in evolving carcinomas within benign prostatic hyperplasia and in cancers of the transition zone. Human pathology. 2003;34(3):228-233.
Viglione MP, Potter S, Partin AW, et al. Should the diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia be made on prostate needle biopsy? Human Pathology. 2002;33(8):796-800.
Hossain D, Meiers I, Qian J, et al. Prostatic stromal hyperplasia with atypia: follow-up study of 18 cases. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2008;132(11):1729-1733.
Ayala AG, Ro JY. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: recent advances. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2007;131(8):1257-1266.
Bishara T, Ramnani DM, Epstein JI. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy: risk of cancer on repeat biopsy related to number of involved cores and morphologic pattern. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2004;28(5):629-633.
Bostwick DG, Cheng L. Precursors of prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):4-27.
Aldaoud N, Hallak A, Abdo N, et al. Interobserver Variability in the Diagnosis of High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia in a Tertiary Hospital in Northern Jordan. Clinical Pathology. 2020;13:2632010X19898472.
Tosoian JJ, Alam R, Ball MW, et al. Managing high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and atypical glands on prostate biopsy. Nature Reviews Urology. 2018;15(1):55-66.
Bostwick DG, Qian J. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Modern pathology. 2004;17(3):360-379.
Bostwick DG, Ma J. Over‐diagnosis of high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a prospective study of 251 cases. BJU international. 2007;100(5):1036-1039.
Zhou M. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, PIN-like carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Modern Pathology. 2018;31(1):71-79.
Herawi M, Kahane H, Cavallo C, et al. Risk of prostate cancer on first re-biopsy within 1 year following a diagnosis of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is related to the number of cores sampled. The Journal of urology. 2006;175(1):121-124.
Baydar DE. Prostat kanser patolojisi. Türk Radyoloji Derneği. 2017;5:370-382.
Trabzonlu L, Kulac I, Zheng Q, et al. Molecular pathology of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: challenges and opportunities. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine. 2019;9(4):a030403.
Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, et al. Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1192-1202.
Offermann A, Joerg V, Hupe MC, et al. CDK19 as a diagnostic marker for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Human Pathology. 2021;117:60-67.
GLOBOCAN 2018: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 14.04.2020 [Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/27-Prostate-fact-sheet.pdf.
Taştekin E, Sarıkaş N. Pathology of Prostate Carcinoma. Turkiye Klinikleri J Urology. 2014;7(4):23-34.
Yencilek F, Koca O, Kuru M. Prostat kanserinde tanı. Nucl Med Semin. 2018;4(3):163-173.
Albright F, Stephenson RA, Agarwal N, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction based on complete prostate cancer family history. The Prostate. 2015;75(4):390-398.
Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. Journal of clinical oncology. 2006;24(14):2137-2150.
Huisman A, Ploeger LS, Dullens H, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant prostate biopsies using three-dimensional chromatin texture analysis by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology. 2011;33(5):265-270.
Epstein JI. Diagnostic criteria of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Human pathology. 1995;26(2):223-229.
Humphrey PA. Histological variants of prostatic carcinoma and their significance. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):59-74.
Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Evans AJ. Therapy‐associated effects in the prostate gland. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):153-165.
Baisden BL, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Perineural invasion, mucinous fibroplasia, and glomerulations: diagnostic features of limited cancer on prostate needle biopsy. The American journal of surgical pathology. 1999;23(8):918.
Bismar TA, Lewis JS, Vollmer RT, et al. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2003;27(4):432-440.
Ali TZ, Epstein JI. Perineural involvement by benign prostatic glands on needle biopsy. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2005;29(9):1159-1163.
Varma M, Lee MW, Tamboli P, et al. Morphologic criteria for the diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsy specimens: A study of 250 consecutive cases in a routine surgical pathology practice. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2002;126(5):554-561.
Thorson P, Vollmer RT, Arcangeli C, et al. Minimal carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens: diagnostic features and radical prostatectomy follow-up. Modern pathology: an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 1998;11(6):543-551.
Bostwick DG, Wollan P, Adlakha K. Collagenous micronodules in prostate cancer. A specific but infrequent diagnostic finding. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 1995;119(5):444-447.
Pacelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Egan AM, et al. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Human pathology. 1998;29(5):543-546.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2016;40(2):244-252.
Kaleem Z, Swanson PE, Vollmer RT, et al. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with atrophic features: a study of 202 consecutive completely embedded radical prostatectomy specimens. American journal of clinical pathology. 1998;109(6):695-703.
Jensen PE, Gardner Jr WA, Piserchia PV. Prostatic crystalloids: Association with adenocarcinoma. The Prostate. 1980;1(1):25-30.
Henneberry JM, Kahane H, Humphrey PA, et al. The significance of intraluminal crystalloids in benign prostatic glands on needle biopsy. The American journal of surgical pathology. 1997;21(6):725-728.
Giannulis I, Montironi R, Galluzzi C, et al. Frequency and location of mitoses in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Anticancer research. 1993;13(6B):2447-2451.
Doğan Gün B, Bektaş S, Bahadır B, et al. Prostat adenokarsinomlarında iğne biyopsileri ve radikal prostatektomi materyallerinin Gleason skoru ve modifiye Gleason skoru açısından karşılaştırılması. Turkish J Pathol. 2007;23(1):21-26.
Özdamar Ş, Sarikaya Ş, Yildiz L, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. International urology and nephrology. 1996;28(1):73-77.
Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128.
Swanson GP, Trevathan S, Hammonds KA, et al. Gleason score evolution and the effect on prostate cancer outcomes. American journal of clinical pathology. 2021;155(5):711-717.
Yeldir N, Yildiz E, Dündar G. Gleason score correlation between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy materials. trauma (such as transurethral resection, needle biopsy). 2019;2:4.
Epstein JI, Lotan T. The lower urinary tract and male genital system. In: Kumar V, Abul K, editors. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2015. p. 859-990.
Neşe N. Prostate and seminal vesicle. In: Yörükoğlu K, editor. Uropathology. 1 ed. İzmir: Congress Bookshop; 2016. p. 319-473.
Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology. 2019;51(5):463-473.
Varma M, Berney D, Oxley J, et al. Gleason score assignment is the sole responsibility of the pathologist. Histopathology. 2018;73(1):5-7.
De Nunzio C, Pastore AL, Lombardo R, et al. The new Epstein gleason score classification significantly reduces upgrading in prostate cancer patients. European journal of surgical oncology. 2018;44(6):835-839.
Sehn JK. Prostate cancer pathology: recent updates and controversies. Missouri medicine. 2018;115(2):151.
Baydar DE, JI E. Gleason Grading System: Modifications and additions to the original scheme. Turkish J Pathol. 2009;25(3):59-57.
Montironi R, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, et al. From Gleason Grading System and High-grade Tertiary Patterns to Grade Groups and Integrated Quantitative Gleason Score. European Urology. 2017;73(5):684-686.
Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Modern Pathology. 2018;31(1):47-63.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2005;29(9):1228-1242.
Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. The Journal of urology. 2010;183(2):433-440.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Humphrey PA, et al. Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the prostate: report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2014;38(8):e6-e19.
