ONCOUROLOGICAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM IS A CONTEMPORARY FORM OF ACTIVE COLLEGIAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CLINICIANS AND PATHOLOGISTS
https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2018-6-1-55-64
Abstract
In 2014, we celebrated 130 anniversary of Grawitz’s report suggesting that the renal carcinoma originates from intrarenal adrenal rests and the name «hypernehproma» was subsequently accepted. The discussions continued until the middle of 20th century when electron microscopic studies finally approved the Virchow’s postulates and showed that the renal tumors originate from the canalicular epithelium. This period became to be also a keystone for uropathology as independent sub-specialization in pathology.
During that period numerous classification of male genital tract tumors were accepted, as well as the histological grading of the tumors, which started to be a part of routine medical practice. The invention of immunohistochemistry and new cytogenetic techniques affected a great influence and increased the significance of role of pathologist in detailed assessment and standardization of morphological criteria of urological tumors.
Side by side, the wide applying of blood test for prostatic specific antigen (PSA) and invention of fineneedle prostatic biopsy technique were performed. The results of this technological breakthrough influenced dramatically to worldwide clinical practice. Such increased clinical interest for early diagnosis and treatment of prostatic cancer made push to wide range of scientific investigations, concerning the morphology of prostate. Due to rapid growth of knowledge about etiology and pathogenesis, as well as biological behavior the different urological malignancies, the significance of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) with participation of urologists, oncologists and pathologists is essential. Such co-operation in urological oncology provides better understanding of the patient’s status, his tumor diagnosis, stage and treatment of the patient. Therefore, participation of the pathologist is the as equal among equals. Such teams can offer more detailed consideration and modern attitude to the oncological problems and can help to design new directions that will be useful to both, patients and clinical physicians (oncologists and urologists), as well as diagnostic pathologists. This co-operation will rapidly increase the self-awareness of the pathologist as ‘diagnostic oncologist’. These multidisciplinary teams might be a good example for other specializations in practical medicine and the organization of such teams and there guidance to the everyday practice is the main aim of this article.
About the Author
E. FridmanIsrael
MD, Head of Uro-Pathology Unit, Department of Pathology;
The Sackler Medical School,
Tel-AvivReferences
1. Srigley JR.: The pathologist as diagnostic oncologist. Pathology. 2009;41(6):513-514.
2. Delahunt B. Editorial: Genitourinary pathology 120 years. Pathology. 2003;35(6):465-6.
3. Bailar JC 3rd, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation—preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129-136.
4. Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J III. The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1967;97(2):331-337.
5. Mellinger GT. Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1977;60:61-72.
6. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(7):802-814.
7. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):1040-6. doi: 10.1043/0003-9985(2000)1242.0.CO;2
8. Delahunt B, Hammond E, Egevad L, Samaratunga H, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Rubin M, Epstein JI, Lin DW, Gore JL, Nacey JN, Klotz L, Sandler H, Zietman AL, Holden S, Montironi R, Evans AJ, McKenney JK, Berney D, Wheeler TM, Chinnaiyan AM, True L, Knudsen B, Amin MB. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: the role of the pathologist. Pathology. 2015;47(1):1-3. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000186
9. Descazeaud A, Rubin MA, Allory Y, Burchardt M, Salomon L, Chopin D, Abbou C, de la Taille A. What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer? European Urology. 2005;48(6):911-5. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.07.011
10. Bostwick DG, Meiers I. Prostate Biopsy and Optimization of Cancer Yield. European Urology. 2006;49(3):415-417. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.052.
11. Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Novella G, Cerruto MA, Galfano A, Novara G, Pea M, Artibani W. Needle core length is a quality indicator of systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2006;50(2):266-71. doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2005.12.057
12. van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl CG, Neetens I, Martikainen P, Di Lollo S, Bubendorf L, Hoedemaeker RF; Members of the pathology committee of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56(5):336-40.
13. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) r6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:1346-1352.
14. Berman DM, Epstein JI. When is prostate cancer really cancer? Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):339-346. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.006
15. 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(35):4294-6. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2012.44.0586
16. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, Nelson P, Ransohoff DF, Welch HG, Hwang S, Berry DA, Kinzler KW, Black WC, Bissell M, Parnes H, Srivastava S. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):e234-42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70598-9
17. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2009;182(2):485-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.016
18. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125-128.
19. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111(1):58-64.
20. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228-1242.
21. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006;449(6):622-627. doi: 10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6
22. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committe. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/ PAS.0000000000000530
23. Grignon DJ. Prostate cancer reporting and staging: needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Modern Pathology. 2018;31(S1):S96-109. doi: 10.1038/ modpathol.2017.167
24. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(4):e1-e7. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820
25. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1335-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.057
26. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, Egevad L, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Sakr WA, Srigley JR, Wheeler TM, Yang XJ, Epstein JI. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(10):1532-9. doi: 10.1097/ PAS.0b013e318169e8fd
27. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566-576.
28. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):753-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
29. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2015.06.046
30. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver Reproducibility of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: General Pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):81-8. doi: 10.1053/ hupa.2001.21135
31. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Jones EC, Reuter VE, Sakr W, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI. Interobserver Reproducibility of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Urologic Pathologists General Pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):74-80. doi: 10.1053/hupa.2001.21134
32. Fleshner NE., Evans A., Chadwick K., Lawrentschuk N., Zlotta A. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(2):197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.08.015
33. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):6-15. doi: 10.1038/ modpathol.2010.178
34. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. 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. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):16-25. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156
35. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad LL, Humphrey PA; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):26-38. doi: 10.1038/ modpathol.2010.158
36. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Montironi R, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):39-47. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.160
37. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Epstein JI; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48-57. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.155
38. Bullock M., Srigley JR., Klotz L., Goldenberg L. Pathologic Effects of Neoadjuvant Cyproterone Acetate on Nonneoplastic Prostate, Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia, and Adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(11):1400-13.
39. Magi-Galluzzi C., Sanderson H., Epstein JI. Atypia in Nonneoplastic Prostate Glands After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Duration of Atypia and Relation to Type of Radiotherapy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(2):206-12. 40. Hopkins Medicine. Available at: http://www. hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/F02/feature2.html Accessed 4 Feb, 2018
Review
For citations:
Fridman E. ONCOUROLOGICAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM IS A CONTEMPORARY FORM OF ACTIVE COLLEGIAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CLINICIANS AND PATHOLOGISTS. Urology Herald. 2018;6(1):55-64. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2018-6-1-55-64