Рекомендации рабочей группы по патологоанатомическому исследованию биопсийного материала при раке предстательной железы

Для того чтобы обеспечить полноту и сопоставимость патологоанатомических исследований биопсийного материала и корректный отбор больных на разные виды лечения при раке предстательной железы необходимы единый протокол исследования и согласованная терминология. В статье приведены рекомендации рабочей группы «Уропатология» Российского общества онкопатологов по исследованию трепанобиоптатов предстательной железы. Они опираются на 5-е издание классификации опухолей Всемирной организации здравоохранения (2022), датасеты ICCR (International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting) и консенсусы ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology). В протоколе различают обязательные и дополнительные признаки, приводят необходимые клинические сведения (уровень простатического специфического антигена, предшествующая терапия, данные магнитно-резонансной томографии/PI-RADS) и описывают особенности работы с материалом от момента забора до готового гистологического препарата.

1. Mensah J.E., Akpakli E., Kyei M. et al. Prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and prostate cancer detection: a study based on more than 7000 transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies in Ghana. Transl Oncol 2025;51:102163. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2024.102163

2. Bostwick D.G., Meiers I. Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma after therapy: review 2007. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131(3):360–71. DOI: 10.5858/2007-131-360-DOPCAT

3. Srigley J.R., Delahunt B., Evans A.J. Therapy-associated effects in the prostate gland. Review. Histopathology 2012;60:153–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04079.x

4. Bostwick D.G., Egbert B.M., Fajardo L.F. Radiation injury of the normal and neoplastic prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6(6):541–52. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-198209000-00006

5. Collins K., Cheng L. Morphologic spectrum of treatment-related changes in prostate tissue and prostate cancer: an updated review. Hum Pathol 2022;127:56–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2022.06.004

6. Rogatsch H., Mairinger T., Horninger W. et al. Optimized preembedding method improves the histologic yield of prostatic core needle biopsies. Prostate 2000;42:124–9. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(20000201)42:2<124::AID-PROS6>3.0.CO;2-5

7. Murugan P., Shukla D., Morocho J. et al. Prostate biopsy processing. Am J Clin Pathol 2019;152:757–65. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqz101

8. Van der Kwast T., Bubendorf L., Mazerolles C. et al. Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: The 2013 update of the pathology committee of the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (erspc). Virchows Arch 2013;463:367–77. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5

9. Iczkowski K.A. Prostate pointers and pitfalls: The 10 most prevalent problems in prostate biopsy interpretation. Ann Diagn Pathol 2014;18:301–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.07.003

10. Brat D.J., Wills M.L., Lecksell K.L., Epstein J.I. How often are diagnostic features missed with less extensive histologic sampling of prostate needle biopsy specimens? Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:257–62. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199903000-00002

11. Рак предстательной железы. Клинические рекомендации Минздрава России, 2021.

12. Blute M.L., Bergstralh E.J., Partin A.W. et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164(5):1591–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67035-8

13. Alqahtani S., Wei C., Zhang Y. et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):7722. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64693-y

14. Checcucci E., Piana A., Volpi G. et al. Three-dimensional automatic artificial intelligence driven augmented-reality selective biopsy during nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a feasibility and accuracy study. Asian J Urol 2023;10(4):407–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.08.001

15. Fiorentino V., Martini M., Dell’Aquila M. et al. Histopathological ratios to predict Gleason score agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020;11(1):10. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11010010

16. Gharbieh S., Mullin J., Jaffer A. et al. Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of anterior prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2025;22(7):439–46. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-024-00992-7

17. Guo C.H., Geng Y.S., Zhu L.Y. et al. The impact of biopsy core length on the discrepancy in Gleason scores between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. BJUI Compass 2025;6(3):e70009. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.70009

18. Hoekstra R.J., Goossens W.J.H., Beulens A. et al. Reassessment of prostate biopsy specimens for patients referred for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy rarely influences surgical planning. Eur Urol Open Sci 2021;28:36–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.04.003

19. Jeong H., Choo M.S., Cho M.C. et al. Prediction of surgical margin status and location after radical prostatectomy using positive biopsy sites on 12-core standard prostate biopsy. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):4066. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08022-5

20. Lanipekun O.K., Wang Y., Miyamoto H. Clinical significance of the relative location of perineural cancer invasion on prostate biopsy: detection within 1-mm of the core tip as an independent prognosticator. Hum Pathol 2026;168:106015. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2025.106015

21. Mai Z., Zhou Z., Yan W. et al. The transverse and vertical distribution of prostate cancer in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Cancer 2018;18(1):1205. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-5124-9

22. Moch H.H.P., Ulbright T.M., Reuter V.E. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs (4th edition). Lyon, France: IARC, 2016.

23. Kir G., Sarbay B.C., Gumus E., Topal C.S. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014;210:640–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.06.002

24. Kweldam C.F., Wildhagen M.F., Steyerberg E.W. et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 2015;28:457–64. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.116

25. Sarbay B.C., Kir G., Topal C.S., Gumus E. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014;210:554–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.03.003

26. Rijstenberg L.L., Hansum T., Kweldam C.F. et al. Large and small cribriform architecture have similar adverse clinical outcome on prostate cancer biopsies. Histopathology 2022;80:1041–9. DOI: 10.1111/his.14658

27. Trudel D., Downes M.R., Sykes J. et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:1610–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.009

28. Ortiz-Rey J.A., Bellas-Pereira A., San Miguel-Fraile P. et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without high-grade invasive adenocarcinoma: report of two cases and review of the literature. Arch Esp Urol 2022;75:738–45. DOI: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20227509.108

29. Okubo Y., Sato S., Hasegawa C. et al. Cribriform pattern and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate can have a clinicopathological impact, regardless of their percentage and/or number of cores. Hum Pathol 2023;135:99–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2023.01.008

30. Epstein J.I., Egevad L., Amin M.B. et al.; Grading Committee. 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 2016;40(2):244–52. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

31. Cole A.I., Morgan T.M., Spratt D.E. et al. Prognostic value of percent gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol 2016;196:405–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.120

32. Epstein J.I., Amin M.B., Fine S.W. et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2021;145(4):461–93. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0015-RA

33. Deng F.M., Isaila B., Jones D. et al. Optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade in MRI-targeted biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2022;46(1):44–50. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001758

34. Pierorazio P.M., Walsh P.C., Partin A.W., Epstein J.I. Prognostic gleason grade grouping: Data based on the modified gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x

35. Karwacki J., Stodolak M., Dłubak A. et al. Association of lymphovascular invasion with biochemical recurrence and adverse pathological characteristics of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci 2024;69:112–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.09.007

36. Karwacki J., Wojdyło L., Klasen K. et al. Revisiting the role of lymphovascular invasion in prostate cancer: a narrative review. Urology 2025;204:264–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2025.06.063

37. Karwacki J., Łątkowska M., Jarocki M. et al. The clinical meaning of lymphovascular invasion: preoperative predictors and postoperative implications in prostate cancer – a retrospective study. Front Oncol 2024;14:1349536. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1349536

38. Lu M., Wu S., Wu C.L. Standardization of reporting discontinuous tumor involvement in prostatic needle biopsy: a systematic review. Virchows Arch 2021;478(3):383–91. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-020-03009-x

39. Классификация опухолей TNM. 8-я редакция. Руководство и атлас. Пер. с англ. под ред. И.В. Поддубной, А.Д. Каприна, В.К. Лядова. М.: Практическая медицина, 2019. Т. 1. 424 с.

40. Joshi A., Shah V., Varma M. Intraprostatic fat in a prostatic needle biopsy: a case report and review of the literature. Histopathology 2009;54:912–3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03299.x

41. Ye H., Walsh P.C., Epstein J.I. Skeletal muscle involvement by limited gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy is not associated with adverse findings at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010;184:2308–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.006.

42. Ohori M., Scardino P.T., Lapin S.L. et al. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:1252–61. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199312000-00006.

43. Kristiansen A., Wiklund F., Wiklund P., Egevad L. Prognostic significance of patterns of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. Histopathology 2013;62:1049–56. DOI: 10.1111/his.12104

44. Epstein J.I., Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: Implications for patient care. J Urol 2006;175:820–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00337-X

45. Humphrey P.A. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 2013;189:315–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.036