Abstract

Benign Prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and carcinoma prostate are increasingly frequent with advancing age. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is the most established precursor of prostatic carcinoma. HGPIN and prostate cancer share genetic and molecular markers as well, with PIN representing an intermediate stage between benign epithelium and invasive malignant carcinoma. The clinical significance of HGPIN is that it identifies patients at risk for malignancy. Purpose of this study was to find out the incidence of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and to study the histochemical characters of PIN and prostatic adenocarcinoma. Method: The present study included prostatic tissue specimen of 150 cases received in the pathology Department during period of April 2013 to December 2014. Histopathological evaluation of all cases were done in the department. Results: PIN accounted for 8.6% (13 cases) with a peak incidence in age group of 70­79 years. LGPIN accounted for 8% (12 cases) and HGPIN accounted for 0.6% (1 case).

• 1.   Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 ­ 2001,National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 2004.
• 2.   Moffat F. Screening of early prostate cancer. J.R. Coll Surg. Edinb 2000;45:127­131.
• 3.   Carroll P, Coley C, McLeod D, Schellhammer P et al. Prostate – specific antigen best practice policy — part I: early detection and diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Urology 2001Feb;57(2):217­24.
• 4.   Neal D. The prostate and seminal vesicles. In: Mann CV, Russel RCG, William NS, eds. Bailey and Love’s short practice of surgery.22nd ed . Chapman Hall; London: 1995, 970–85.
• 5.   Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM.GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010, 29.
• 6.   Jain S, Saxena S, Kumar A. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in India. Meta Gene. 2014;2:596­605.
• 7.   Josephine A. Clinicopathological study of prostatic biopsies.J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(9):FC0–6.
• 8.   Lakhtakia R, Bharadwaj R, Kumar VK, Mandal P, Nema SK. Immunophenotypic characterization of benign and malignant prostatic lesions. Med J Armed Force India. 2007;63:243–8.
• 9.   Dabir PD, Ottosen P, Hoyer S, Hamilton­Dutoit S. Comparative analysis of three­ and two­antibody cocktails to AMACR and basal cell markers for the immunohistochemical diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Diagn Pathol. 2012;7:81.
• 10.   Consolidated report of population based cancer registries 2001–2004: incidence and distribution of cancer. Bangalore (IND): Coordinating Unit, National Cancer Registry Programme, Indian Council of Medical Research; 2006.
• 11.   Stillwell JT, Engen ED Farrow MG. The clinical spectrum of granulomatous prostatitis: A report of 200 cases. J Urol 1987;138:320­323.
• 12.   Epstein IJ, Yang JX. Prostatic intra epithelial neoplasia and its mimickers. Prostate biopsy interpretation series. 3rd ed, Lippincott Williams and Wilkin: 2002; 33­64.
• 13.   Mc Neal EJ. Morphogenesis of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 1965;18:1659­1666.
• 14.   Brawer KM. Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A premalignant lesion. Hum Pathology 1992;23: 242­248.
• 15.   Gaudin PB, Wojno KJ, Sesterhenn IA, et al: High Grade PIN in TURP specimen. Modern Pathology 1995;8:76A.