International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2

T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume

Theo H. Van Der Kwast, Mahul Amin, Athanase Billis, Jonathan I. Epstein, David Griffiths, Peter A. Humphrey, Rodolfo Montironi, Thomas M. Wheeler, John R. Srigley, Lars Egevad, Brett Delahunt

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

159 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-25
Number of pages10
JournalModern Pathology
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Pathology
Tumor Burden
Neoplasms
Neoplasm Grading
Multivariate Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2 : T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. / Van Der Kwast, Theo H.; Amin, Mahul; Billis, Athanase; Epstein, Jonathan I.; Griffiths, David; Humphrey, Peter A.; Montironi, Rodolfo; Wheeler, Thomas M.; Srigley, John R.; Egevad, Lars; Delahunt, Brett.

In: Modern Pathology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 16-25.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Van Der Kwast, TH, Amin, M, Billis, A, Epstein, JI, Griffiths, D, Humphrey, PA, Montironi, R, Wheeler, TM, Srigley, JR, Egevad, L & Delahunt, B 2011, 'International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume', Modern Pathology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.156
Van Der Kwast, Theo H. ; Amin, Mahul ; Billis, Athanase ; Epstein, Jonathan I. ; Griffiths, David ; Humphrey, Peter A. ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Wheeler, Thomas M. ; Srigley, John R. ; Egevad, Lars ; Delahunt, Brett. / International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2 : T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. In: Modern Pathology. 2011 ; Vol. 24, No. 1. pp. 16-25.
@article{8d3d99bd3b104e3fb93ded582ddb9d1d,
title = "International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume",
abstract = "The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74{\%} of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5{\%}) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.",
author = "{Van Der Kwast}, {Theo H.} and Mahul Amin and Athanase Billis and Epstein, {Jonathan I.} and David Griffiths and Humphrey, {Peter A.} and Rodolfo Montironi and Wheeler, {Thomas M.} and Srigley, {John R.} and Lars Egevad and Brett Delahunt",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/modpathol.2010.156",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "16--25",
journal = "Modern Pathology",
issn = "0893-3952",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2

T2 - T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume

AU - Van Der Kwast, Theo H.

AU - Amin, Mahul

AU - Billis, Athanase

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

AU - Griffiths, David

AU - Humphrey, Peter A.

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

AU - Wheeler, Thomas M.

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Egevad, Lars

AU - Delahunt, Brett

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

AB - The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650863647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650863647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156

DO - 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156

M3 - Review article

VL - 24

SP - 16

EP - 25

JO - Modern Pathology

JF - Modern Pathology

SN - 0893-3952

IS - 1

ER -