Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Impact of cribriform pattern 4 and intraductal prostatic carcinoma on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) patient stratification

Abstract

Pretreatment classification tools are used in prostate cancer to inform patient management. The effect of cribriform pattern 4 (CC) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC) on such nomograms is still underexplored. We analyzed the Cancer of Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk scores in cases with and without CC/IDC to assess impact on biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastases/death of prostate cancer (event free survival-EFS) after prostatectomy. A matched biopsy- prostatectomy cohort (2010–2017) was reviewed for CC/IDC. CAPRA and NCCN scores were calculated. CAPRA score 0–2 were deemed “low”, 3–5 “intermediate” and 6–10 “high”. NCCN scores 1–2 “very low/low”, 3 “favorable intermediate”, 4 “unfavorable intermediate”, 5–6 “high/very high”. Cases were stratified by presence of CC/IDC. BCR and EFS probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic performance was evaluated using log-rank tests and Harrell’s concordance index. 612 patients with mean age 63.1 years were included with mean follow up of 5.3 (range 0–10.8) years. CC/IDC was noted in 159/612 (26%) biopsies. There were 101 (17%) BCR and 36 (6%) events. CAPRA discriminated three distinct risk categories for BCR (p < 0.001) while only high risk separated significantly for EFS (p < 0.001). NCCN distinguished two prognostic groups for BCR (p < 0.0001) and three for EFS (p < 0.0001). Addition of CC/IDC to CAPRA impacted scores 3–5 for BCR and scores 3–5 and 6–10 for EFS and improved the overall concordance index (BCR: 0.66 vs. 0.71; EFS: 0.74 vs. 0.80). Addition of CC/IDC to NCCN impacted scores 4 and 5–6 and also improved the concordance index for BCR (0.62 vs. 0.68). Regarding EFS, NCCN scores 4 and 5–6 demonstrated markedly different outcomes with the addition of CC/IDC. The CAPRA nomogram allows better outcome stratification than NCCN. Addition of CC/IDC status particularly improves patient stratification for CAPRA scores 3–5, 6–10, and for NCCN scores 4 and 5–6.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Intraductal carcinoma on core needle biopsy.
Fig. 2: Recurrence free survival and event free survival graphs of study cohort.
Fig. 3: Impact of IDC/CC inclusion.

Data availability

The datasets used in the current study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70, 7-30 (2020)

  2. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177, 2106-31 (2007)

  3. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 71, 618-29 (2017)

  4. Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 348, 7524 (2014)

  5. Lukka H, Warde P, Pickles T, Morton G, Brundage M, Souhami L, et al. Controversies in prostate cancer radiotherapy: consensus development. Can J Urol 8, 1314-22 (2001)

  6. Cooperberg MR. Prostate cancer risk assessment: choosing the sharpest tool in the shed. Cancer 113, 3062-3066 (2008)

  7. Caulfield S, Menezes G, Marignol L, Poole C. Nomograms are key decision-making tools in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Urol Oncol 36, 283-292 (2018)

  8. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 19-30 (2016)

  9. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117, 5039-5046 (2011)

  10. Brajtbord JS, Leapman MS, Cooperberg MR. The CAPRA Score at 10 Years: Contemporary Perspectives and Analysis of Supporting Studies. Eur Urol 71, 705-709 (2017)

  11. Downes MR, Xu B, van der Kwast TH. Gleason grade patterns in nodal metastasis and corresponding prostatectomy specimens: impact on patient outcome. Histopathology 75, 715-722 (2019)

  12. Montironi R, Zhou M, Magi-Galluzzi C, Epstein JI. Features and Prognostic Significance of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate. Eur Urol Oncol 1, 21-28 (2018)

  13. Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Billis A, Bostwick DG, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive form of invasive carcinoma and should be graded. Pathology 52, 192-196 (2020)

  14. Downes MR, Xu B, van der Kwast TH. Cribriform architecture prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies is a strong independent predictor for lymph node metastases in radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 148, 432-439 (2021)

  15. Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: Histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19, 1528-1535 (2006)

  16. Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, Saito AM, Sassa N, Ishida R, et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 74, 680-687 (2014)

  17. 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 36, 1346-1352 (2012)

  18. Rijstenberg LL, Hansum T, Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Remmers S, Roobol MJ, et al. Large and small cribriform architecture have similar adverse clinical outcome on prostate cancer biopsies. Histopathology https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14658 (2022)

  19. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D, Verhoef EI, Steyerberg EW, van der Kwast TH, et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy. Mod Pathol, 29, 630-636 (2016)

  20. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 28, 457-564 (2015)

  21. Trudel D, Downes MR, Sykes J, Kron KJ, Trachtenberg J, van der Kwast TH. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer 50, 1610-1616 (2014)

  22. Masoomian M, Downes MR, Sweet J, Cheung C, Evans AJ, Fleshner N, et al. Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set. Histopathology 74, 474-482 (2019)

  23. van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ, Berney DM, Delahunt B, Evans AJ, Iczkowski KA, et al. ISUP Consensus Definition of Cribriform Pattern Prostate Cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 45, 1118-1126 (2021)

  24. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 40, 244-252 (2016)

  25. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Billis A, Cheng L, Clouston D, et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology 51, 463–473 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barakzai MA. Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: A Grading from Gleason to the New Grade-Group System: A Historical and Critical Review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 20, 661-666 (2019)

  27. Humphrey PA. Histopathology of Prostate Cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 7, a030411 (2017)

  28. Montironi R, Cimadamore A, Gasparrini S, Mazzucchelli R, Santoni M, Massari F, et al. Prostate cancer with cribriform morphology: diagnosis, aggressiveness, molecular pathology and possible relationships with intraductal carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 18, 685-693 (2018)

  29. Hassan O, Matoso A. Clinical significance of subtypes of Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 7, S477-S483 (2018)

  30. Jeyapala R, Kamdar S, Olkhov-Mitsel E, Zlotta A, Fleshner N, Visakorpi T, et al. Combining CAPRA-S with Tumor IDC/C Features Improves the Prognostication of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.003 (2022)

  31. Jamaspishvili T, Patel PG, Niu Y, Vidotto T, Caven I, Livergant R, et al. Risk stratification of prostate cancer through quantitative assessment of PTEN Loss (qPTEN). J Natl Cancer Inst 112, 1098–1104 (2020)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Salles DC, Vidotto T, Faisal FA, Tosoian JJ, Guedes LB, Muranyi A, et al. Assessment of MYC/PTEN status by gene-protein assay in grade group 2 prostate biopsies. J Mol Diagn 23, 1030–1041 (2021)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zelic R, Garmo H, Zugna D, Stattin P, Richiardi L, Akre O, et al. Predicting prostate cancer death with different pretreatment risk stratification tools: a head-to-head comparison in a nationwide cohort study. Eur Urol 77, 180–188 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173, 1938-1942 (2005)

  35. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Incrocci L, et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 30, 1126-1123 (2017)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was presented, in part, at the 2022 United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology meeting on March 22.

Funding

This work was supported, in part, by Prostate Cancer Canada grant to T.v.D.K. (Movember Discovery grant D2017-1879).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.Y. collected, analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript. M.R.D. and T.v.D.K designed the study, collected and analyzed data, and revised the manuscript. A.F. and N.F. drafted and revised the manuscript. K.L. contributed with statistical analysis. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanhong Yu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The present study was approved by the research ethics boards of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the University Health Network (REB 395-2017 and CAPCR 17-5727).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Y., Lajkosz, K., Finelli, A. et al. Impact of cribriform pattern 4 and intraductal prostatic carcinoma on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) patient stratification. Mod Pathol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01111-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01111-w

Search

Quick links