The Genitourinary Pathology Society and International Society of Urological Pathology Joint Expert Consultation Recommendations on intraductal carcinoma of the prostate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflicting practice recommendations regarding the grading of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP) from two leading uropathology societies, the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) and the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), are confusing for both pathologists and treating clinicians. The objectives of this consultation were to clarify unresolved issues regarding IDCP and atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) terminology, diagnostic criteria, grading, and management implications, as well as to develop uniform reporting guidelines for IDCP and AIP, endorsed by both societies. A 32‐member expert panel, composed of five core members, 25 expert urological pathologists, and two expert urologists, employed a modified Delphi process consisting of multiple rounds of consultation and voting. These were supplemented by discussions at the 2025 United States and Canadian Academy of Pathologists Annual Meeting to achieve expert consensus (defined as at least 67% agreement). Consensus was reached on several key issues. IDCP was regarded most commonly as reflecting the retrograde spread of invasive prostate cancer (PCa). IDCP diagnosis should be based on the Guo and Epstein criteria, supported by basal cell immunohistochemistry in cases that are difficult to distinguish from invasive PCa. The term AIP should be used only in equivocal proliferations where IDCP is favoured but the criteria are not fully met, and these should be reported as ‘AIP, suspicious for IDCP’. In the presence of invasive PCa, IDCP should generally be incorporated into Gleason grading irrespective of Grade Group (GG). However, a significant minority (30%) favoured excluding IDCP from the Gleason score if the invasive component was solely Gleason pattern (GP) 3. Pure IDCP (not associated with invasive PCa) and AIP, suspicious for IDCP, should not be graded. IDCP should not be incorporated in the grading of invasive PCa when it is spatially distinct from invasive PCa. A second opinion from a senior or dedicated GU pathologist and discussion within a multidisciplinary management setting should be considered, in the rare settings of pure IDCP or GP3 + IDCP (formerly GG1 + IDCP scenario). This joint GUPS–ISUP consultation provides unified recommendations for the diagnosis, terminology, grading, and reporting of IDCP and AIP, and will pave the way for the development of future IDCP/AIP WHO guidelines. Their adoption should reduce interobserver variation, facilitate consistent communication with clinicians, and improve patient management.The GUPS–ISUP joint expert consultation on IDCP provides unified recommendations for the diagnosis, terminology, grading, and reporting of IDCP and atypical intraductal proliferation. Their adoption should reduce interobserver variation, facilitate consistent communication with clinicians, and improve patient management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".