Cystoprostatectomy specimens obtained from patients with bladder cancer provide a unique opportunity to assess the features of silent prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa). The whole-mount prostate sections of 248 totally embedded and consecutively examined radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) specimens were reviewed to determine the incidence and features of incidentally detected PCa. PCa was considered clinically significant if any of the following criteria were present: total tumor volume, 0.5 cc or more; Gleason grade, 4 or more; extraprostatic extension; seminal vesicle invasion; lymph node metastasis (of PCa); or positive surgical margins. PCa was present in 123 (49.6%) of 248 specimens. Features were as follows: acinar adenocarcinoma, 123 (100.0%); peripheral zone location, 98 (79.7%); pT2a, 96 (78.0%); pT2b, 11 (8.9%); pT2c, 9 (7.3%); pT3a, 5 (4.1%); pT3b, 2 (1.6%); pT4, 0 (0.0%); Gleason score 6 or less, 107 (87.0%); negative margins, 119 (96.7%); pN0 for PCa, 123 (100.0%); and tumor volume less than 0.5 cc, 116 (94.3%). Of the 123 incidentally detected cases of PCa, 100 (81.3%) were considered clinically insignificant. Incidentally detected PCa is frequently observed in RCP. The majority are clinically insignificant.

No abstract

ROS1 rearrangement characterizes a small subset (1%–2%) of non-small cell lung cancer and is associated with slight/never smoking patients and adenocarcinoma histology. Identification of ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory to permit targeted therapy with specific inhibitors, demonstrating a significantly better survival when compared with conventional chemotherapy. Detection of ROS1 rearrangement is based on in situ (immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization) and extractive non-in situ assays. While fluorescence in situ hybridization still represents the gold standard in clinical trials, this technique may fail to recognize rearrangements of ROS1 with some gene fusion partner. On the other hand, immunohistochemistry is the most cost-effective screening technique, but it seems to be characterized by low specificity. Extractive molecular assays are expensive and laborious methods, but they specifically recognize almost all ROS1 fusions using a limited amount of mRNA even from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissues. This review is a discussion on the present and futuristic diagnostic scenario of ROS1 identification in lung cancer.

Reported incidence of no residual prostate cancer (i.e. pathological stage pT0) on radical prostatectomy ranges from 0.07 to 4.2%. The incidence is higher after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. The aim of this study was to search for residual cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens when an initial sampling failed to find the cancer in patients with positive biopsy. Our database of 1,328 consecutive patients whose biopsies and RP specimen were both examined at the Polytechnic University-United Hospitals of the Marche Region between March 1995 and June 2006 was reviewed. The radical prostatectomies were grossly completely sampled and examined with the whole mount technique. We identified eight patients (i.e. 0.6%; three untreated and five hormonally treated preoperatively, i.e. 0.3 and 0.8%, respectively, of the total number of RPs included in the study) with positive biopsy and with no residual cancer in the initial routine histological examination of the RP. The RP of this group of eight was subjected to additional sectioning and evaluation of the paraffin blocks of the prostatectomy, also after block-flipping, immunostaining with an antibody against CAM 5.2, p63, PSA, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, and DNA specimen identity analysis. There were no cases with a false positive biopsy diagnosis, and cancer was not overlooked or missed in the initial routine histological examination of any of the 8 pT0 RPs. A minute focus of cancer (the diameter was always below 2.0 mm) was found on the additional sections in five. In particular, cancer was found after block-flipping in one of them. In an additional case, cancer was eventually discovered after immunostaining tissue sections for cytokeratin CAM 5.2, for p63 and PSA. In the remaining two cases (one untreated and the other hormonally treated), cancer was not found (0.15% of the 1,328 RPs included in the study); the review of the description of the macroscopic appearance of the RP and of its slides revealed that part of the peripheral zone corresponding to the site of the positive biopsy was missing, i.e. not removed from the patient at the time of the operation at least in one of the two. DNA specimen analysis confirmed the identity of the biopsy and prostatectomy in both. An extensive search for residual cancer reduces the number of pT0 RPs after a positive biopsy from 0.6 to 0.15%. It is recommended to have the needle biopsy reviewed, carefully look again at the radical prostatectomy, do deeper sections and then flip certain paraffin blocks. In addition, atypical foci should be stained for basal cell markers and often AMACR, especially in hormone-treated cases. If a block is missing part of the peripheral zone (capsular incision), this should be commented on. DNA analysis for tissue identity should be performed when the other steps have been taken without finding cancer.

No abstract