Salles Daniela C, Mata Douglas A, Epstein Jonathan I
Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287 USA.
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065 USA.
Hum Pathol. 2020 Aug;102:7-12. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2020.05.003. Epub 2020 May 20.
The grading and prognosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma with Paneth cell-like differentiation (PanEC) is controversial with limited available data. We identified 80 cases, not previously published, of PanEC first identified on biopsy (n = 69), transurethral resection of the prostate (n = 1), and radical prostatectomy (RP) (n = 10). Of 69 biopsies, 22 did not have a grade assigned. In the remaining 47 biopsies, the Grade Groups (GGs) of the associated usual prostatic adenocarcinoma were GG1-2 (n = 34) and GG3-5 (n = 13). Of 10 RPs, the GGs were as follows: GG1-2 (n = 8), GG4 (n = 1), and no grade due to treatment effect (n = 1); pathological stages were pT2 (n = 8) and pT3a (n = 2), all with negative lymph nodes. We analyzed 19 cases with available follow-up only associated with GG1-2 conventional cancer; 9 underwent RP, and GGs at RP were as follows: GG1-2 (n = 7), no grade due to treatment effect (n = 1), and missing data (n = 1); pathologic stages were pT2 (n = 6) and pT3a (n = 3); there were no positive regional lymph nodes; 3 were managed with active surveillance, without follow-up progression; 5 patients underwent radiation therapy with or without hormone therapy; none showed follow-up progression; 2 (10.5%) patients were recommended to undergo radiotherapy, with no further follow-up. Of the cases with available follow-up, 9 were not associated with conventional adenocarcinoma; the majority of these cases were treated with radiation therapy or active surveillance without evidence of progression. In summary, although a minority of PanECs are associated with conventional higher grade adenocarcinoma and have progression after treatment, the majority have favorable findings, justifying the consideration of them as more indolent tumors despite cases in which PanEC resembles Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma.
具有潘氏细胞样分化(PanEC)的前列腺腺癌的分级和预后存在争议,可用数据有限。我们识别出80例此前未发表的PanEC病例,首次发现于活检(n = 69)、经尿道前列腺切除术(n = 1)和根治性前列腺切除术(RP)(n = 10)。在69例活检病例中,22例未进行分级。在其余47例活检病例中,相关普通前列腺腺癌的分级组(GGs)为GG1 - 2(n = 34)和GG3 - 5(n = 13)。在10例RP病例中,GGs情况如下:GG1 - 2(n = 8),GG4(n = 1),因治疗影响未分级(n = 1);病理分期为pT2(n = 8)和pT3a(n = 2),所有病例淋巴结均为阴性。我们分析了19例仅与GG1 - 2期传统癌症相关且有可用随访数据的病例;9例接受了RP,RP时的GGs情况如下:GG1 - 2(n = 7),因治疗影响未分级(n = 1),数据缺失(n = 1);病理分期为pT2(n = 6)和pT3a(n = 3);区域淋巴结无阳性;3例接受主动监测,无随访进展;5例患者接受了放疗,联合或未联合激素治疗;均无随访进展;2例(10.5%)患者被建议接受放疗,无进一步随访。在有可用随访数据的病例中,9例与传统腺癌无关;这些病例多数接受了放疗或主动监测,无进展证据。总之,尽管少数PanEC与传统高级别腺癌相关且治疗后有进展,但多数病例预后良好,尽管有PanEC类似Gleason 5级腺癌的病例,但仍有理由将它们视为惰性更强的肿瘤。