Does prostate acinar adenocarcinoma with Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 have the potential to metastasize?
© Montironi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 22 August 2014
Accepted: 20 September 2014
Published: 18 October 2014
There is a worldwide debate involving clinicians, uropathologists as well as patients and their families on whether Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma should be labelled as cancer.
We report a case of man diagnosed with biopsy Gleason score 6 acinar adenocarcinoma and classified as low risk (based on a PSA of 5 ng/mL and stage cT2a) whose radical prostatectomy specimen initially showed organ confined Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6, WHO nuclear grade 3, acinar adenocarcinoma with lymphovascular invasion and secondary deposit in a periprostatic lymph node. When deeper sections were cut to the point that almost all the slice present in the paraffin block was sectioned, a small tumor area (<5% of the whole tumor) of Gleason pattern 4 (poorly formed glands) was found in an extraprostatic position.
The epilogue was that the additional finding changed the final Gleason score to 3 + 3 = 6 with tertiary pattern 4 and the stage to pT3a.
The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_190
KeywordsProstate cancer Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma Gleason score Lymphovascular invasion Lymph node metastasis Periprostatic lymph node
There is a worldwide debate involving clinicians, uropathologists as well as patients and their families on whether Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma should be labelled as cancer. There are those in favor of continuing to call it cancer, while others are in favor of removing the label of cancer from Gleason 6 tumors -. Such hot debate is based on both clinical data and personal view.
Those who speak in favor of leaving the label of cancer base their opinion on the fact that Gleason score 6 cancer is composed of Gleason pattern 3 cancer, which shares cytological and molecular alterations associated with higher Gleason patterns and has the ability to extend locally beyond the prostate and metastasize . Those who speak in favor of removing such label base their orientation on data demonstrating that using a time horizon of 10 to 15 years, less than 3% of men diagnosed with Gleason score 6 and classified as low risk will die as a result of prostate cancer whether treated or not . A recent paper by Ross et al. showed that all adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason Score ≤6 with lymph node metastasis had a higher grade component on slide review . Finley et al. reported that one lymph node metastasis within the periprostatic fat was detected in a patient who had been preoperatively classified as low risk .
We report a case of man diagnosed with low risk Gleason score 6 acinar adenocarcinoma whose radical prostatectomy specimen was reported to harbor Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma with lymphovascular invasion and metastasis in a periprostatic lymph node. The case presentation includes an epilogue that could better explain the tumor behavior.
The patient, 67 years old, had a past 5-year history of increasing urinary obstructive symptoms and clinical diagnosis of benign prostatic enlargement for which he had been treated with an alpha(1A)/alpha(1D)-adrenoceptor antagonist. There was no history of other medications or hormonally-active supplements. No comorbidities, including diabetes, were present.
His most recent preoperative total serum PSA was 7.2 ng/ml, with a free-to-total ratio of 0.12. Transrectal ultrasound revealed a hypoechoic area in the left mid part of the prostate. Induration of the same prostate zone was detected by digital rectal examination. Twelve random ultrasound guided prostatic needle cores were taken. Histological diagnosis of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 acinar adenocarcinoma occupying 40% of one of the 12 cores, from the left part of the prostate and corresponding to the location of the hypoechoic area, was made. The tumor was classified in the low risk category. Even though the patient was considered a potential candidate for active surveillance, open radical prostatectomy (monolateral nerve sparing in the right side) was performed. Pelvic lymph node dissection was not carried out.
The prostate specimen was received fresh from the operating room. Its weight without the seminal vesicles (33 grams) and all three dimensions were recorded, the latter used for prostate volume calculation (24.12 cc). The specimen was then covered with India ink and fixed for 48 hours in 4% neutral buffered formalin. After fixation, the apex and base (3 mm thick slices) were removed from each specimen and examined by the cone method. The prostate body was step-sectioned at 3 mm intervals perpendicular to the long axis of the gland. The seminal vesicles were cut into two halves and processed in toto. The cut specimen was post-fixed and then dehydrated in graded alcohols, cleared in xylene, embedded in paraffin and examined histologically as 5 μm-thick whole-mount hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections. The Gleason grading was based on the 2010 modification of the "2005 ISUP Modified Gleason System" . Staging was done according to the 2009 TNM revision .
The tumor was initially characterized by the following main features: Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6, WHO grade 3, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node with metastasis in the periprostatic soft tissue.
In our current presentation, the index tumor consisted of variably sized individual well-formed gland, without cribriform glands, individual cells and glomeruloid features, i.e., Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6. The same score was observed in the biopsy, dominant nodule of the specimen and lymph node deposit. The Gleason grading system of prostatic carcinoma is the quintessential prognostic factor in predicting findings in radical prostatectomy, biochemical failure, local recurrences, lymph node or distant metastasis in patients receiving no treatment, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy and other therapies, including cryotherapy and high intensity focal ultrasound therapy ,-. Clinicians use routinely various tools, such as Partin tables or Kattan nomograms, to predict outcomes, including pathological stage or prognosis following treatment ,. All of these tools incorporate the Gleason score.
The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a conference in 2005 in San Antonio, TX, USA, in an attempt to achieve consensus in controversial areas relating to the Gleason system. This has led to what is called "2005 ISUP Modified Gleason System" . Lesions previously referred to as Gleason scores 2 to 4 in the classic system are now assigned a higher grade (Gleason score 6) in the modified system; however, those previously graded as Gleason score 6 in the classic system are often graded as Gleason score 7 tumors in the modified system. It has recently been recommended by Dr JI Epstein that all cribriform patterns are diagnosed as Gleason pattern 4 rather than pattern 3. It has also been suggests that glomerulations most likely represent an early stage of cribriform pattern 4 cancer and should likely be graded as pattern 4. Such recent changes are also known as 2010 modification of the "2005 ISUP Modified Gleason System" . The general theme of such changes was to limit the definition of pattern 3 carcinoma and widen the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma.
Our case showed LVI in the peritumoral parenchyma. LVI has been defined as the unequivocal presence of tumor cells within endothelial-lined spaces with no underlying muscular walls or as the presence of tumor emboli in small intraprostatic vessels. Baydar et al.  classified lymphovascular invasion as intratumoral (55%), at the periphery of the tumor (18%), both intra- and peritumoral (9%), and at a distant site from the tumor (18%). Univariate analyses showed lymphovascular invasion to be a significant predictor of disease recurrence and/or progression following radical prostatectomy and multivariate analyses have confirmed that lymphovascular invasion is an independent predictor of disease recurrence, when controlling for other pathologic variables known to influence clinical outcome. Studies have demonstrated an association between the presence of lymphovascular invasion and decreased time to biochemical progression, distant metastases, and overall survival after radical prostatectomy -.
Our case showed metastasis in a periprostatic lymph node, i.e., in the periprostatic fat and in areas outside the standard lymphadenectomy. There are very few studies on the incidence and location of periprostatic/periseminal vesicle (PP/PSV) lymph nodes and the frequency of their involvement by metastatic PCa. In the study by Kothari et al.  4.4% of patients showed PP/PSV lymph nodes. Sizes ranged from 0.7 to 4.5 mm (mean 1.8 mm). Distribution was 2 of 39 (5.1%) apical, 3 of 39 (7.7%) mid, 17 of 39 (43.6%) base, and 17 of 39 (43.6%) seminal vesicle. 0.6% had metastatic PCa to the PP/PSV lymph nodes. A recent study by Hansen et al.  found lymph nodes within periprostatic fat pads were detected in 5.5% patients, i.e., 19 patients. Metastasis was found in 4, only one with pT2a stage with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, the remaining 3 being pT3. Finley et al. reported that one lymph node metastasis within the periprostatic fat was detected in a patient who had been preoperatively classified as low risk, similar to our case . These findings implicate that patients who seem to have low-risk PCa may harbor PCa metastases within lymph nodes of the periprostatic fat even if they do not have positive pelvic lymph nodes. Von Bodman et al and Briganti et al reported that the number of positive lymph nodes affects prognosis in PCa patients with lymph node metastases and reported cut-offs of 1 and 2 positive lymph nodes associated with adverse disease-related outcomes, respectively ,. In this context, one positive lymph node within the periprostatic fat pad may influence a patient's prognosis  and should be reported as N1 according to the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual .
Our morphologic findings of Gleason score to 3 + 3 = 6 with tertiary pattern 4 with lymph node metastasis are in agreement with the histological observation made by Ross et al. . They reviewed the slides of 17 radical prostatectomy specimens with Gleason Score (GS) ≤6 cancer and pelvic lymph node metastases. They found that 2 of their cases had tertiary pattern 4 with small cribriform glands. However, it was unknown whether it was the tertiary pattern 4 to confer the metastatic potential to the disease. An answer to this was given by Haffner et al.  in a recent study in which they used whole-genome sequencing and molecular pathological analyses to characterize the lethal cell clone in a patient who died of prostate cancer. They tracked the evolution of the lethal cell clone from the primary cancer to metastases through samples collected during disease progression and at the time of death. Surprisingly, these analyses revealed that the lethal clone arose from a small Gleason pattern 3 cancer focus in the primary tumor, and not from the bulk, higher-grade primary cancer or from a lymph node metastasis resected at prostatectomy.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
This report was supported by grants from the Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona) Italy (MS, RMa and RM). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona, Italy).
- Berman DM, Epstein JI: When is prostate cancer really cancer?. Urol Clin North Am. 2014, 41: 339-346. 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.006.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Veltri RW, Nelson WG, Coffey DS, Singer EA, Epstein JI: Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30: 4294-4296. 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA. 2013, 310: 797-798. 10.1001/jama.2013.108415.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nickel JC, Speakman M: Should we really consider Gleason 6 prostate cancer?. BJU Int. 2012, 109: 645-646. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10854.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Soloway MSR: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. Eur Urol. 2014, 65: 249-250. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.023.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mohler JL: The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010, 8: 145-PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI: Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)? 6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012, 36: 1346-1352. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Finley DS, Deane L, Rodriguez E, Vallone J, Deshmukh S, Skarecky D, Carpenter P, Narula N, Ornstein DK, Ahlering TE: Anatomic excision of anterior prostatic fat at radical prostatectomy: implications for pathologic upstaging. Urology. 2007, 70: 1000-1003. 10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.028.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Epstein JI: An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010, 183: 433-440. 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C: Urological tumour, prostate. UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Edited by: Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford UK, 243-248. 7Google Scholar
- Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R: Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012, 136: 426-434. 10.5858/arpa.2011-0495-RA.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005, 29: 1228-1242. 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gleason DF: Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966, 50: 125-128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Caras RJ, Sterbis JR: Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment. Curr Urol Rep. 2014, 15: 391-10.1007/s11934-013-0391-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lughezzani G, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Kattan MW, Montorsi F, Shariat SF, Vickers AJ: Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2010, 58: 687-700. 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.07.034.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brawer MK, Bostwick DG, Benson MC, Djavan B, Lilja H, Semionow A, Su S, Zhou Z, Foster CS, Algaba F, Hutter RVP, Montironi R, Mostofi FK, Sark W, Sesterehenn I, Pow Sang J: Prostate tissues factor. Prostate Cancer. 2nd International Consultation on Prostate Cancer- 1999 Paris. Edited by: Murphy G, Khoury S, Partin A, Denis L. 2000, Plymbridge Distributors Ltd, Plymouth, UK, 162-201.Google Scholar
- Venkataraman G, Rycyna K, Rabanser A, Heinze G, Baesens BM, Ananthanarayanan V, Paner GP, Barkan GA, Flanigan RC, Wojcik EM: Morphometric signature differences in nuclei of Gleason pattern 4 areas in Gleason 7 prostate cancer with differing primary grades on needle biopsy. J Urol. 2009, 181: 88-93. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.013.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baydar DE, Baseskioglu B, Ozen H, Geyik PO: Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in clinically localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Sci World J. 2008, 8: 303-312. 10.1100/tsw.2008.49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brooks JP, Albert PS, O'Connell J, McLeod DG, Poggi MM: Lymphovascular invasion in prostate cancer: prognostic significance in patients treated with radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2006, 106: 1521-1526. 10.1002/cncr.21774.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yee DS, Shariat SF, Lowrance WT, Maschino AC, Savage CJ, Cronin AM, Scardino PT, Eastham JA: Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2011, 108: 502-507. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09848.x.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kothari PS, Scardino PT, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM: Incidence, location, and significance of periprostatic and periseminal vesicle lymph nodes in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001, 25: 1429-1432. 10.1097/00000478-200111000-00012.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hansen J, Budäus L, Spethmann J, Schlomm T, Salomon G, Rink M, Haese A, Steuber T, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M, Michl U: Assessment of rates of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases in periprostatic fat pads in a consecutive cohort treated with retropubic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012, 80: 877-882. 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.052.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- von Bodman C, Godoy G, Chade DC, Cronin A, Tafe LJ, Fine SW, Laudone V, Scardino PT, Eastham JA: Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010, 184: 143-148. 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.039.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, Freschi M, Doglioni C, Fazio F, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Blute ML: Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N + patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol. 2009, 55: 261-270. 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.043.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM, Fedor H, Heaphy CM, Walker DA, Adejola N, Gürel M, Hicks J, Meeker AK, Halushka MK, Simons JW, Isaacs WB, De Marzo AM, Nelson WG, Yegnasubramanian S: Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2013, 123: 4918-4922. 10.1172/JCI70354.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.