This special section includes 4 articles as the proceedings of the Fifth Princeton Integrated Pathology Symposium (PIPS): Genitourinary Pathology, and an update on neuroendocrine tumor of the prostate. The symposium took place at the Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, New Jersey, on Sunday April 15, 2018. We hope again that this collection of outstanding reviews will serve as a handy reference for your daily practice.
Molecular pathology is playing an increasingly important role in almost every subspecialty of anatomic pathology. But its availability and clinical usefulness vary by subspecialty. Magers and Cheng provide a review on the practical use of molecular testing in genitourinary pathology. The organ-based summary table and several sample photomicrographs will help readers better understand and use these molecular tests. The table in our view is particularly useful for listing targeted genes/molecules, test methods, and suitable specimen types. Tumor mutation burden is an emerging biomarker for guiding immunotherapy, and is also discussed.
Immunohistochemistry is now a critical part of handling morphologically challenging cases. Ross, Li, and Yang share their institutional experiences in using various immunohistochemical markers for genitourinary pathology. The pitfalls of commonly used markers are very concerning and in our opinion worth serious consideration in your daily practice. For example, ETS-related gene (ERG) could be false negative in high-grade prostate carcinomas, yet false positive in endothelial cells including vascular tumors. Many similar examples are described in the text and illustrated by photomicrographs. This comprehensive review on the diagnostic pitfalls of immunohistochemical markers covers the tumors of prostate, bladder, testis, and kidney. Summary tables are presented for each of these organs.
The false-negative rate of diagnosing prostate carcinoma on biopsy ranged from 2% to 10%. The consequence of missing a cancer could be devastating and painful for both pathologists and patients. It is therefore critical to avoid or reduce false-negative diagnoses on prostate biopsy. Yang and Humphrey thus present their experiences in identifying the morphologically deceptive prostate acinar carcinomas. They classify the contributing factors into 5 categories, namely, tissue artifacts, minimal adenocarcinoma, deceptively benign histologic variants of prostatic adenocarcinoma, single cell adenocarcinoma, and treatment effects. One should always look out for these diagnostic pitfalls when interpreting prostate biopsies.
The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual became effective for diagnosing and treating cancers on January 1, 2018. The differences between the 8th and the 7th AJCC staging manuals appear subtle in some areas of genitourinary pathology. To better illustrate the subtle, yet important, differences, Cornejo, Rice-Stitt, and Wu compare and contrast the staging criteria of these 2 editions with numerous tables and photomicrographs. They also review the literature with a focus on the changes adopted by the 8th edition manual. Given the nearly 2 years of experience in adopting the 8th AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, this update article is timely, practical, and clinically relevant.
Tumor grading is also an important prognostic factor for cancers. The grading schemes of genitourinary tumors have changed in recent years as new data became available. Most of these grading schemes are straightforward, despite some still being difficult to adopt, while some are less clear than others. We therefore may need a detailed discussion on the practical use or misuse of these grading schemes. However, few articles to our knowledge were exclusively focused on the changes of grading schemes. The review by Rice-Stitt et al appears to fill in such a gap. It not only provides a practical guide on adopting the new grading scheme, but also serves as a good source for the history of evolving grading schemes in genitourinary pathology.
Complementary to the symposium, Hu, Han, and Huang provide an update on the morphologic and histochemical features of prostate neuroendocrine tumors. They describe the different clinical outcomes of various prostate tumors with neuroendocrine component. Conventional neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate adenocarcinoma is not linked to any survival difference. But Paneth cell–like neuroendocrine differentiation is linked to better survival, despite its morphologic similarity to high-grade carcinoma. The rare types of neuroendocrine tumor in prostate, namely, small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, are also discussed in depth. Finally, they offer practicing pathologists some insightful comments on how to identify/confirm the origin of neuroendocrine carcinoma, as well as how to best convey the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor to clinicians.
We very much appreciate the support of Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Editor-in-Chief Philip T. Cagle, MD, the other advisory committee members of the PIPS, the authors, and the reviewers. We also wish to thank Patrick Kearns, Katie Giesen, and Hilary Price at the editorial office of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, James Demetriades, BS, MBA, and Elliot A. Krauss, MD, at Princeton Medical Center, and F. Michael Walsh, MD, MBA, at Aurora Diagnostics.
Author notes
The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.