Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is putative premalignant lesions of the prostate. This lesion has role as precuror of prostatic carcinoma (PC), predictive role for PC and high coexistens with PC. Existed two grade of PIN: low grade PIN (LGPIN) and high grade PIN (HGPIN). PC is most important malignacy in man and has high mortality in male. The aim of research was to invastigated morphological comparative patterns of HGPIN and PC. We analyzed biopsy material of 299 cases (cs). We used histopathological metods of investigation. We found HGPIN in 42 cs (14.0%) with mean age 66.3 y and PC in 35 cs (11.7%) with mean age 70.7 y. HGPIN was most frequently in the seventh decade of life (54.8%), and PC in the eight decade (45.4%). Four common pattern of HGPIN were identified: tufting (78.6%), micropapillary (72.8%), cribriform (16.6%) and flat (9.5%). In 21 from 35 cs (60%) with PC was coexistent HGPIN. HGPIN we found in the periferial part in the 22 cs. (52.4%) and in the periurthral part of the prostate in the 12 Cs. (28.6%). HGPIN were multicentric in the 22 cs. (52.4%), in the 15 cs. (68.2%) in the periferial part, and in the 7 cs (31.8%) in the periurethral part of the prostate. PC in the 22 cs (62.9%) was localized in the periferial, and in the 7 cs in the periuretral portion of the prostate. PC was multicentric in 28.6%. Important histological patterns for distinction HGPIN i PC are: disruption of basal cell layer, perineural invasion, mitotic figures, multiple nucleoli, collagenous micronodules, infiltrative growth. HGPIN and PC we found in sufficient percentage. Both lesion were most frequently multicentric, periferial localisation and coexistent. Because of that these lesions needed serious clinical and histological investigations for patients.
Lowe FC, Gibert SM, Kahane H. Evidence of increased prostate cancer detection in men aged 50 to 59: a review of 324,684 biopsies performed between 1995 and 2001. Urology. 62(6):1045–9.
2.
Zigeuner RE, Lipsky K, Riedler I. Did the rate of incidental prostate cancer change in the era of PSA testing? A retrospective study of 1,127 patients. Urology. 62(3):451–5.
3.
Wills ML, Hamper UM, Partin AW. Incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in sextant needle biopsy specimens. Urology. 49:367–73.
4.
Ro J, Grignon D, Tronocoso P. Intraluminal crystalloids and whole-organ sections of prostate. Prostate. 13:233–9.
5.
Qian J, Jenkins RB, Bostwick DG. Determination of gene and chromosome dosage in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 20:373–80.
6.
Qian J, Wollan P, Bostwick DG. The extent and multicentricity of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in clinically localized prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 17(1):72–9.
7.
Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BJ. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol. 150:379–85.
8.
Pacelli A, Bostwick DG. The clinical significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in transurethral resection specimens. Urology. 50:355–9.
9.
Orozco R, O’Dowd G, Kunnel B. Observations on pathology trends in 62,537 prostate biopsies obtained from urology private practices in the United States. Urology. 51(2):186–95.
10.
Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Valenstein PA. Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 123(8):687–92.
11.
Montironi R, Magi Galluzzi C, Diamanti L. Prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the blood capillary architecture on thin tissue sections. Path Res Pract. 189:542–8.
12.
McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol. 12(12):897–906.
13.
McNeal JE, Bostwick DG. Intraductal dysplasia: a premalignant lesion of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 17(1):64–71.
14.
Arangelovich V, Tretiakova M, SenGupta E. Pathogenesis and significance of collagenous micronodules of the prostate. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 11(1):15–9.
15.
Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Carroll JT. Use of transrectal ultrasound and prostate-specific antigen in diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Urology. Suppl), 24:4–8.
16.
Henneberry J, Kahane H, Humphrey P. The significance of intraluminal crystalloids in benign prostatic glands on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 21:725–8.
17.
Helpap B. Observations on the number, size and location of nucleoli in hyperplastic and neoplastic prostate disease. Histopathology. 13:203–11.
18.
Harvei S, Skjorten FJ, Robsahm TE. Is prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in the transition/central zone a true precursor of cancer? A long-term retrospective study in Norway. Br J Cancer. 78:46–9.
19.
Eicherberger LA, Koch MO, Daggy JK. Predicting tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients with prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 120(3):386–91.
20.
Davidson D, Bostwick DG, Qian J. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma: Predictive accuracy in needle biopsies. J Urol. 154:1295–9.
21.
Brossner C, Winterholer A, Roehlich M. Distribution of prostate carcinoma foci within the peripheral zone: analysis of 8,062 prostate biopsy cores. World J Urol. 21(3):163–6.
22.
Bostwick DG. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. The most likely precursor of prostatic cancer. Cancer. 75:1823–36.
23.
Bostwick DG, Shan A, Qian J. Independent origin of multiple foci of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: comparison with matched foci of prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 83:1995–2002.
24.
Bostwick DG, Qian J, Frankel K. The incidence of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in needle biopsies. J Urol. 154:1791–4.
25.
Bostwick DG, Amin MB, Dundore P. Architectural patterns of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol. 24:298–310.
26.
Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol. 27(4):432–40.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
