Focal Signet Ring Cell High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia on Needle Biopsy

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-347
Author(s):  
Guang-Qian Xiao ◽  
Pamela D. Unger
Keyword(s):  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Invasive Carcinoma ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Signet Ring Cell ◽  
Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Intraductal Carcinoma ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Free Standing ◽  
Signet Ring ◽  
Ring Cell

Signet ring cell prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a rare speculated variant of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Here, we present a free-standing and isolated signet ring cell HGPIN that was not associated with invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy and demonstrated the existence of this type of HGPIN variant. The differentiation between HGPIN and intraductal carcinoma of prostate is also discussed.

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland With Transmucosal Spread to the Seminal Vesicle: A Lesion Distinct From High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia

2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (7) ◽  
pp. 1122-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Cohen ◽  
Beverly A. Shannon ◽  
Sydney L. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Seminal Vesicle ◽  
Invasive Carcinoma ◽  
Prostate Gland ◽  
Ejaculatory Duct ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Intraductal Carcinoma ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Carcinoma Of The Prostate ◽  
High Stage

Abstract Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) gland represents an intraluminal neoplastic proliferation that is distinct from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PIN) and almost always coexists with large-volume, high-stage, and high-grade invasive carcinoma. We document an unusual presentation of apparently “early” IDC-P without an aggressive invasive element that, despite being confined to the acinar-ductal system, has gained access to the ejaculatory duct and seminal vesicle by transmucosal spread. This finding confirms that IDC-P, in contrast to HG-PIN, is inherently aggressive and has the ability to spread beyond the prostate gland. In this case, the absence of an aggressive invasive element suggests that IDC-P has most likely evolved within the lumens directly from HG-PIN.

Effect of signet-ring cell carcinoma histology on bladder cancer outcome.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
J. Wang ◽  
F. Wang ◽  
C. A. Enke
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Bladder ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Signet Ring Cell ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Signet Ring ◽  
Ring Cell

275 Background: Signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the urinary bladder is a rare entity. Recent case series of the condition showed inconsistent results. We used a population-based data set to compare the cancer specific survival of patients with signet-ring cell carcinoma vs. transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urinary bladder. Methods: Signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder and transitional carcinoma of the urinary bladder were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program (2001 to 2004). Demographic and pathological characteristics at diagnosis were compared. Differences in cancer specific survival were compared with univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 103 SRCC cases were present in the database from 2001 to 2004. In that time 14,648 cases TCC cases were diagnosed. SRCC was more common in younger than in older patients (p <0.001); more commonly presented with high grade histology (p <0.001) and advanced stage disease (p <0.001). The 3-year cancer specific survival rate was 67.0% and 33.2% for TCC and SRCC, respectively. On multivariate analysis there was an increased mortality risk in patients with SRCC vs TCC (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03–1.97, p <0.001). When only high grade cases of SRCC and TCC were compared, the risk was still worse in SRCC (HR 1.430, 95% CI 1.035–1.976, 0.03). When only local stage of SRCC and TCC were compared, the risk was worse in SRCC (HR 4.294, 95% CI 1.035–17.825, 0.045). Limited to patient who underwent cystectomy only, the difference in cancer specific survival disappeared (HR 1.289, 95% CI 0.771–2.155, 0.33). Conclusions: Even after adjusting for demographic, pathological and treatment factors, cancer specific survival is significantly worse in patients with SRCC than TCC. Further research into the biology of this rare tumor is required to explain these results. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document