Aspek Histopatologik Adenokarsinoma Prostat

Erna Kristiani


Introduction: Prostate carcinoma is the second most common tumor in male, 95% in which made up from adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma through a needle biopsy specimen plus the determination of tumor staging are paramount in selecting the therapy and management. This study is done to know the morphologic variation of prostate adenocarcinoma in the needle biopsy as well as to measure the grading compatibility between the needle biopsy and prostatectomy using Gleason scoring system.

Materials and Method: This retrospective study is conducted through form and specimen slides compilement. The specimens, consisting of prostate adenocarcinoma’s needle biopsy and prostatectomy, were gathered from the archives of Pathological Anatomy Departement, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia in the year of 2008-2013. The slides were re-read and the morphologic appearance’s variation was valued. Gleason scoring was also executed from the pairing specimen according to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2010.

Result: Out of 114 needle biopsy cases, the morphologic variation was found to be perineural invation (n=38), mucinous fibroplasia (n=1), glomerulation (n=1), mucinous basophilic (n=25), and eosinophilic crystal (n=5). The amount of patient that was performed both specimen is 11, and there is a compatibility between biopsy score and prostatectomy as much as 63.63% and the median is 7.

Conclusion: It is requisite to know the morphological variation in prostate adenocarcinoma in the biopsy needle specimen to get an accurate diagnosis. Undergrading in biopsy specimen is as much as 36.36%, owing to the fact that prostate carcinoma can be manifested as mutifocal lesion, thus the higher grading can only be found in prostatectomy specimen, for the needle biopsy was inadequately taken.

Keywords: prostate adenocarcinoma, morphological view, Gleason score



Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook WC, Bastacky S, Boccon-Gibod L, De Marzo AM, et al. Tumours of the prostate. In: Kleihues P, Sobin LH, editors. World Health Organization classification of tumors: pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004.p. 160-215.

World Health Organization. Globocan 2012, Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer 2013.

European Association of Urology. Guidelines on prostate cancer 2012, Arnhem (Netherland): European Association of Urology.2012.

Shirish C, Jadhav S, Anwekar C, Kumar H, Buch C, Chaudari U. Clinico pathological study of benign and malignant lesion of prostate. Int J Pham Bio Sci. 2013;3 : 162-78.

Bulbul MA, El-Hout Y, Haddad M, Tawil A, Houjaji A, Diab NB, et al. Pathological correlation between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with localized prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2007;1: 264-6.

Badan Registrasi Kanker Perhimpunan Dokter Spesialis Patologi Indonesia. Kanker di Indonesia tahun 2010, Jakarta (Indonesia): Data histopatologik. 2010.

Velickovic L, Katic V, Tasic D, Dordevic B, Ivkovic V, Ivkovic S, et al. Morphologic criteria for the diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsy specimens. Arch oncol. 2004;12:54-5.suppl1

Epstein JI, Yang XJ. Diagnosis of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In: Epstein JI, Yang XJ. Prostate biopsy interpretation. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.p.64-91.

Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Humprey PA, Srigley JR. Background, principles, and overview of the gleason system. In: Gleason grading of prostate cancer-a contemporary approach. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.p.1-12.

Thorson P, Humprey PA. Minimal adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:896-909.

Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpeli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G, Algaba F. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int.2005;95:1146-52.

Köksal IT, Özcan F, Kadioğlu TC, Esen T, Kiliçaslan I, Tunç M. Disrepancy between gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.Eur Urol. 2000;37:670-4.

Gevaert T, Van Poppel H, Joniau S, De Ridder D, Lerut E. Current perspectives on the use of the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer. Belg J Med Oncol 2012;6:45-51.

Epstein JI. An update of Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010; 183(2):433-40.

Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the international society of urological pathology modified gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med.2012;136:426-34.

Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney Dm, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein J, et al. A Contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2012;62: 20-39.

Shah R. Current perspectives on the gleason grading of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 1810-6.

Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, Okty M, Karakoyunlu N, Ersoy H, et al. Will the modification of the gleason grading system affect the urology practice? Int J Surg Pathol. 2010;18(4):248-54.

Rapiti E, Schaffar R, Iselin C, Miralbel R, Pelte M, Weber D, et al. Importance and determinants of gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study. BMC Urology. 2013;13:19-24.

Helpap B, Egevad L. Modified gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol. 2009;24:661-6.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Erna Kristiani

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

favicon Fakultas Kedokteran | Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang, Indonesia, 15811