JoVE Visualize What is visualize?
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Advanced Search
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Regular Search
Find video protocols related to scientific articles indexed in Pubmed.
Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: interobserver reproducibility survey of 39 urologic pathologists.
Ann Diagn Pathol
PUBLISHED: 08-26-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma (IDC) of the prostate remains subjective because 3 sets of diagnostic criteria are in use. An internet survey was compiled from 38 photomicrographs showing duct proliferations: 14 signed out as high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), 17 IDC, and 7 invasive cribriform/ductal carcinoma. Each image was assessed for the presence of 9 histologic criteria ascribed to IDC. Thirty-nine respondents were asked to rate images as (1) benign/reactive, (2) HGPIN, (3) borderline between HGPIN and IDC, (4) IDC, or (5) invasive cribriform/ductal carcinoma. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.68. There was 70% overall agreement with HGPIN, 43% with IDC, and 73% with invasive carcinoma (P < .001, ?(2)). Respondents considered 19 (50%) of 38 cases as IDC candidates, of which 5 (26%) had a two-thirds consensus for IDC; two-thirds consensus for either borderline or IDC was reached in 9 (47%). Two-thirds consensus other than IDC was reached in the remaining 19 of 38 cases, with 15 supporting HGPIN and 4 supporting invasive carcinoma. Findings that differed across diagnostic categories were lumen-spanning neoplastic cells (P < .001), 2× benign duct diameters (P < .001), duct space contours (round, irregular, and branched) (P < .001), papillary growth (P = .048), dense cribriform or solid growth (both P = .023), and comedonecrosis (P = .015). When the 19 of 38 images that attained consensus for HGPIN or invasive carcinoma were removed from consideration, lack of IDC consensus was most often attributable to only loose cribriform growth (5/19), central nuclear maturation (5/19), or comedonecrosis (3/19). Of the 9 histologic criteria, only 1 retained significant correlation with a consensus diagnosis of IDC: the presence of solid areas (P = .038). One case that attained IDC consensus had less than 2× duct enlargement yet still had severe nuclear atypia and nucleomegaly. Six fold nuclear enlargement was not significant (P = .083), although no image had both 6× nuclei and papillary or loose cribriform growth: a combination postulated as sufficient criteria for IDC. Finally, 20.5% of respondents agreed that an isolated diagnosis of IDC on needle biopsy warrants definitive therapy, 20.5% disagreed, and 59.0% considered the decision to depend upon clinicopathologic variables. Although IDC diagnosis remains challenging, we propose these criteria: a lumen-spanning proliferation of neoplastic cells in preexisting ducts with a dense cribriform or partial solid growth pattern. Solid growth, in any part of the duct space, emerges as the most reproducible finding to rule in a diagnosis of IDC. Comedonecrosis is a rarer finding, but in most cases, it should rule in IDC. Duct space enlargement to greater than 2× the diameter of the largest, adjacent benign spaces is usually present in IDC, although there may be rare exceptions.
Related JoVE Video
Adequate histologic sectioning of prostate needle biopsies.
Ann Diagn Pathol
PUBLISHED: 04-06-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
No standard method exists for sampling prostate needle biopsies, although most reports claim to embed 3 cores per block and obtain 3 slices from each block. This study was undertaken to determine the extent of histologic sectioning necessary for optimal examination of prostate biopsies. We prospectively compared the impact on cancer yield of submitting 1 biopsy core per cassette (biopsies from January 2010) with 3 cores per cassette (biopsies from August 2010) from a large national reference laboratory. Between 6 and 12 slices were obtained with the former 1-core method, resulting in 3 to 6 slices being placed on each of 2 slides; for the latter 3-core method, a limit of 6 slices was obtained, resulting in 3 slices being place on each of 2 slides. A total of 6708 sets of 12 to 18 core biopsies were studied, including 3509 biopsy sets from the 1-biopsy-core-per-cassette group (January 2010) and 3199 biopsy sets from the 3-biopsy-cores-percassette group (August 2010). The yield of diagnoses was classified as benign, atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and cancer and was similar with the 2 methods: 46.2%, 8.2%, 4.5%, and 41.1% and 46.7%, 6.3%, 4.4%, and 42.6%, respectively (P = .02). Submission of 1 core or 3 cores per cassette had no effect on the yield of atypical small acinar proliferation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or cancer in prostate needle biopsies. Consequently, we recommend submission of 3 cores per cassette to minimize labor and cost of processing.
Related JoVE Video

What is Visualize?

JoVE Visualize is a tool created to match the last 5 years of PubMed publications to methods in JoVE's video library.

How does it work?

We use abstracts found on PubMed and match them to JoVE videos to create a list of 10 to 30 related methods videos.

Video X seems to be unrelated to Abstract Y...

In developing our video relationships, we compare around 5 million PubMed articles to our library of over 4,500 methods videos. In some cases the language used in the PubMed abstracts makes matching that content to a JoVE video difficult. In other cases, there happens not to be any content in our video library that is relevant to the topic of a given abstract. In these cases, our algorithms are trying their best to display videos with relevant content, which can sometimes result in matched videos with only a slight relation.