The International Society of Urological Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference made recommendations regarding classification, prognostic factors, staging, and immunohistochemical and molecular assessment of adult renal tumors. Issues relating to prognostic factors were coordinated by a workgroup who identified tumor morphotype, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation, tumor necrosis, grading, and microvascular invasion as potential prognostic parameters. There was consensus that the main morphotypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were of prognostic significance, that subtyping of papillary RCC (types 1 and 2) provided additional prognostic information, and that clear cell tubulopapillary RCC was associated with a more favorable outcome. For tumors showing sarcomatoid or rhabdoid differentiation, there was consensus that a minimum proportion of tumor was not required for diagnostic purposes. It was also agreed upon that the underlying subtype of carcinoma should be reported. For sarcomatoid carcinoma, it was further agreed upon that if the underlying carcinoma subtype was absent the tumor should be classified as a grade 4 unclassified carcinoma with a sarcomatoid component. Tumor necrosis was considered to have prognostic significance, with assessment based on macroscopic and microscopic examination of the tumor. It was recommended that for clear cell RCC the amount of necrosis should be quantified. There was consensus that nucleolar prominence defined grades 1 to 3 of clear cell and papillary RCCs, whereas extreme nuclear pleomorphism or sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation defined grade 4 tumors. It was agreed upon that chromophobe RCC should not be graded. There was consensus that microvascular invasion should not be included as a staging criterion for RCC.

The histologic distinction between high-grade prostate cancer and infiltrating high-grade urothelial cancer may be difficult, and has significant implications because each disease may be treated very differently (ie, hormone therapy for prostate cancer and chemotherapy for urothelial cancer). Immunohistochemistry of novel and established prostatic and urothelial markers using tissue microarrays (TMAs) were studied. Prostatic markers studied included: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostein (P501s), prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), NKX3.1 (an androgen-related tumor suppressor gene), and proPSA (pPSA) (precursor form of PSA). "Urothelial markers" included high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK), p63, thrombomodulin, and S100P (placental S100). TMAs contained 38 poorly differentiated prostate cancers [Gleason score 8 (n=2), Gleason score 9 (n=18), Gleason score 10 (n=18)] and 35 high-grade invasive urothelial carcinomas from radical prostatectomy and cystectomy specimens, respectively. Each case had 2 to 8 tissue spots (0.6-mm diameter). If all spots for a case showed negative staining, the case was called negative. The sensitivities for labeling prostate cancers were PSA (97.4%), P501S (100%), PSMA (92.1%), NKX3.1 (94.7%), and pPSA (94.7%). Because of PSA's high sensitivity on the TMA, we chose 41 additional poorly differentiated primary (N=36) and metastatic (N=5) prostate carcinomas which showed variable PSA staining at the time of diagnosis and performed immunohistochemistry on routine tissue sections. Compared to PSA, which on average showed 18.8% of cells with moderate to strong positivity, cases stained for P501S, PSMA, and NKX3.1 had on average 42.5%, 53.7%, 52.9% immunoreactivity, respectively. All prostatic markers showed excellent specificity. HMWCK, p63, thrombomodulin, and S100P showed lower sensitivities in labeling high-grade invasive urothelial cancer in the TMAs with 91.4%, 82.9%, 68.6%, and 71.4% staining, respectively. These urothelial markers were relatively specific with only a few prostate cancers showing scattered (

The intermediate filament protein Nestin identifies stem/ progenitor cells in adult tissues, but the function of Nestin is poorly understood. We investigated Nestin expression and function in common lethal cancers. Nestin mRNA was detected in cell lines from small cell lung, and breast cancers, and particularly elevated in cell lines derived from prostate cancer metastases. Whereas the androgen-independent lines PC3, 22RV1, and DU145 all expressed Nestin transcripts under standard culture conditions, the androgen-dependent line LnCaP expressed Nestin only on androgen withdrawal. We confirmed associations of Nestin expression, androgen withdrawal, and metastatic potential by immunohistochemical analysis of samples from 254 prostate cancer patients. Cytoplasmic Nestin protein was readily identifiable in prostate cancer cells from 75% of patients with lethal androgenindependent disease, even in cancer sampled from the prostate itself. However, Nestin expression was undetectable in localized androgen-deprived tumors and in metastases without prior androgen deprivation. To address its function, we reduced Nestin levels with short hairpin RNAs, markedly inhibiting in vitro migration and invasion in prostate cancer cells but leaving cell growth intact. Nestin knockdown also diminished metastases 5-fold compared with controls despite uncompromised tumorigenicity at the site of inoculation. These results specify a function for Nestin in cell motility and identify a novel pathway for prostate cancer metastasis. Activity of this pathway may be selected by the extraprostatic environment or, as supported by our data, may originate within the prostate after androgen deprivation. Further dissection of this novel Nestin migration pathway may lead to strategies to prevent and neutralize metastatic spread.

Isolated capsular incision into tumor is uncommon in cases of radical prostatectomy performed by experienced urologists, typically Gleason score 6, and most common in the neurovascular bundle region. Isolated capsular incision has a higher recurrence rate than organ confined or focal extraprostatic extension margin negative disease, yet a lower recurrence rate than extensive extraprostatic extension margin positive tumor, and a worse prognosis with greater extent of capsular incision.

The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants’ responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.

Endometriosis is often seen in gynecology practice and is treated medically. However, intestinal involvement of endometriosis causing obstruction is relatively uncommon and is hard to differentiate from malignancy before surgery. Herein, we present a case of acute colonic obstruction caused by rectal endometriosis. Repeat colonoscopic biopsy and imaging studies could not differentiate the lesion from malignancy. Segmental resection with anastomosis was performed to relieve the symptom and confirm the diagnosis. We present this unusual disease in general surgical practice and also review the literature. The incidence, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and risk of malignancy of intestinal endometriosis are discussed.

Capsular incision (CI) refers to the urologist transecting either benign or malignant prostatic tissue, where the edge of the prostate in this region is left within the patient. Histologic assessment of CI is difficult and its diagnosis varies among pathologists. Between 1993 and 2004, we reviewed 186 radical prostatectomies that were signed out as either: (1) CI into tumor in otherwise organ-confined disease [elsewhere no extra-prostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node spread] (n=143); (2) positive surgical margin in an area difficult to distinguish EPE from CI into tumor in otherwise organ-confined disease (n=36); or (3) equivocal positive surgical margin in an area difficult to distinguish organ-confined disease with tumor close to resection margins (OC M-) from CI into tumor in otherwise organ-confined disease (n=7). On review, CI with a positive margin was confirmed in 83.2% of cases. Of cases signed out with margins positive where it was difficult to distinguish CI from EPE, CI was confirmed in 52.8% of cases. Cases with equivocal positive margins with either CI or OC M- were considered CI with positive margins in 57.1% of cases on review. Cases in all 3 groups not considered positive margins with CI were on review equally divided between diagnoses of organ-confined margin negative and EPE with positive margins. The locations of the 39 cases originally misdiagnosed as definitive or questionable CI with positive margins were posterolateral (N=19, 48.7%), distal (N=12, 30.8%), posterior (N=6, 15.4%), and anterolateral (N=2, 5.1%). Familiarity with different patterns of EPE in different anatomic locations and applying strict criteria for diagnosing CI into tumor can minimize overcalling CI and can provide accurate feedback to urologists to prevent iatrogenic positive margins.

The International Society of Urologic Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference on renal cancer, through working group 3, focused on the issues of staging and specimen handling of renal tumors. The conference was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urologic Pathology members, and the results of this were used to inform the focus of conference discussion. On formal voting a ≥65% majority was considered a consensus agreement. For specimen handling it was agreed that with radical nephrectomy specimens the initial cut should be made along the long axis and that both radical and partial nephrectomy specimens should be inked. It was recommended that sampling of renal tumors should follow a general guideline of sampling 1 block/cm with a minimum of 3 blocks (subject to modification as needed in individual cases). When measuring a renal tumor, the length of a renal vein/caval thrombus should not be part of the measurement of the main tumor mass. In cases with multiple tumors, sampling should include at a minimum the 5 largest tumors. There was a consensus that perinephric fat invasion should be determined by examining multiple perpendicular sections of the tumor/perinephric fat interface and by sampling areas suspicious for invasion. Perinephric fat invasion was defined as either the tumor touching the fat or extending as irregular tongues into the perinephric tissue, with or without desmoplasia. It was agreed upon that renal sinus invasion is present when the tumor is in direct contact with the sinus fat or the loose connective tissue of the sinus, clearly beyond the renal parenchyma, or if there is involvement of any endothelium-lined spaces within the renal sinus, regardless of the size. When invasion of the renal sinus is uncertain, it was recommended that at least 3 blocks of the tumor-renal sinus interface should be submitted. If invasion is grossly evident, or obviously not present (small peripheral tumor), it was agreed that only 1 block was needed to confirm the gross impression. Other recommendations were that the renal vein margin be considered positive only when there is adherent tumor visible microscopically at the actual margin. When a specimen is submitted separately as "caval thrombus," the recommended sampling strategy is to take 2 or more sections to look for the adherent caval wall tissue. It was also recommended that uninvolved renal parenchyma be sampled by including normal parenchyma with tumor and normal parenchyma distant from the tumor. There was consensus that radical nephrectomy specimens should be examined for the purpose of identifying lymph nodes by dissection/palpation of the fat in the hilar area only; however, it was acknowledged that lymph nodes are found in <10% of radical nephrectomy specimens.