Literature DB >> 12394696

Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens.

Axel Glaessgen1, Hans Hamberg, Carl-Gustaf Pihl, Birgitta Sundelin, Bo Nilsson, Lars Egevad.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recently the percent Gleason grade 4/5 was proposed as a predictor of the outcome of prostate cancer and it has been shown that it adds prognostic information to that given by Gleason score. To our knowledge the interobserver variability of percent Gleason grade 4/5 has not yet been investigated. We assessed the percent Gleason grade 4/5, including the identification of high grade patterns and estimation of the percent tumor area, which is potentially more difficult than conventional Gleason grading.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 69 total prostatectomy specimens was reviewed. A single slide per specimen was circulated among 4 genitourinary pathologists, who assessed Gleason score and the percent Gleason grade 4/5. Results were compared pairwise and a weighted kappa was calculated for Gleason score and the percent Gleason grade 4/5.
RESULTS: The 4 observers had a mean weighted kappa for Gleason score and the percent Gleason grade 4/5 of 0.52 to 0.66 (overall mean 0.56) and 0.58 to 0.72 (overall mean 0.66), respectively. The best agreement for percent Gleason grade 4/5 was in 2 pathologists at the same department (weighted kappa 0.86). Transition zone tumors had a lower weighted kappa for Gleason score but a higher weighted kappa for percent Gleason grade 4/5 than peripheral zone tumors. In cases of the greatest disagreement in the percent Gleason grade 4/5 crush artifact, cribriform cancer and high grade PIN within the tumor were significantly more common. An intraobserver reproducibility of weighted kappa 0.91 was achieved for Gleason score and the percent Gleason grade 4/5.
CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver reproducibility of the percent Gleason grade 4/5 is substantial and at least as good as that of the Gleason score. Hence, concern about interobserver variability should not deter pathologists from using the percent Gleason grade 4/5 as a prognostic marker for prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12394696     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000034255.95952.df

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  9 in total

Review 1.  [The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics].

Authors:  B Helpap; L Egevad
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911).

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Laurence Collette; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi DaPozzo; Jean-François Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Michel Bolla
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  Biomarker research in prostate cancer--towards utility, not futility.

Authors:  Sheng Fei Oon; Stephen R Pennington; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael Goodman; Kevin C Ward; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Milton W Datta; Daniel Luthringer; Andrew N Young; Katerina Marks; Vaunita Cohen; Jan C Kennedy; Michael J Haber; Mahul B Amin
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 4.104

6.  Digital pathology image analysis: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2009

7.  Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Axel Glaessgen; Hans Hamberg; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Birgitta Sundelin; Bo Nilsson; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Platform for Prostate Cancer Grading and Quantification.

Authors:  Wei Huang; Ramandeep Randhawa; Parag Jain; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Rong Hu; Samuel Hubbard; Jens Eickhoff; Hirak Basu; Rajat Roy
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01

9.  Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; David G Bostwick; Liang Cheng; Andrew J Evans; Troy Gianduzzo; Markus Graefen; Jonas Hugosson; James G Kench; Katia R M Leite; Jon Oxley; Guido Sauter; John R Srigley; Pär Stattin; Toyonori Tsuzuki; John Yaxley; Hemamali Samaratunga
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 5.588

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.