Literature DB >> 12874761

Accuracy of gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement.

Yoshiki Mikami1, Toshiaki Manabe, Jonathan I Epstein, Taizo Shiraishi, Masakuni Furusato, Toyonori Tsuzuki, Yoshihiro Matsuno, Hironobu Sasano.   

Abstract

The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of Gleason grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma among practicing pathologists in Japan and to determine the influence of education on this accuracy. Using a case-oriented approach, 16 hematoxylin and eosin-;stained glass slides with consensus scores established by 4 urologic pathologists were reviewed by 91 pathologists, divided into 2 groups. In group A, average agreements with consensus scores before and after an educational lecture were 55.7% (n = 17) and 68.4% (n = 25), and average kappa values were 0.43 and 0.67, respectively. Twelve pathologists reviewed slides twice in a different order, with average agreements of 59.5% and 77.6%, and average kappa values of 0.48 and 0.69 before and after the lecture, yielding a statistically significant improvement. In group B, the average agreement before providing an atlas with a tutorial was 61.3% (n = 61), and the kappa value was 0.44. In the second round, the average agreement was 74.5% (n = 39), and the kappa value was 0.68. Among 39 pathologists who reviewed slides twice, the average agreement in the first round was 58.8%, and the kappa value was 0.42. Improvement of both the average agreement and the kappa value were statistically significant. The average improvement in kappa values among participants who reviewed slides twice was 0.22 in group A and 0.27 in group B, a difference that is not statistically significant. Combining both groups, the incidence of concordant scores for 16 cases rose from 58.9% to 75.4%, an average increase of 16.5%. The undergrading of score 5-7 lesions was significantly reduced, from 36.3% to 14.2%. With respect to demographic factors, pathologists signing out more than 5000 cases per year showed a better agreement than those with more than 1000 cases per year (48.9% versus 78.8%; P = 0.031). These results indicate that the general agreement of Gleason scores among practicing pathologists in Japan was comparable with those in the Western countries as reported in the literature. Although this requires further improvement, both the lecture and the printed material had a similar influence on the degree of improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12874761     DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(03)00191-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  11 in total

1.  Improving the reproducibility of the Gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer--suggestion of diagnostic criteria for glandular fusion.

Authors:  B Helpap; G Kristiansen; M Beer; J Köllermann; U Oehler; A Pogrebniak; Ch Fellbaum
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 3.201

2.  The value of second-opinion pathology diagnoses on prostate biopsies from patients referred for management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Al B Barqawi; Ruslan Turcanu; Eduard J Gamito; Scott M Lucia; Colin I O'Donnell; E David Crawford; David D La Rosa; Francisco G La Rosa
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2011-06-12

3.  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

4.  AI Model for Prostate Biopsies Predicts Cancer Survival.

Authors:  Kevin Sandeman; Sami Blom; Ville Koponen; Anniina Manninen; Juuso Juhila; Antti Rannikko; Tuomas Ropponen; Tuomas Mirtti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-20

Review 5.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors:  Rainer Engers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays.

Authors:  M Burchardt; R Engers; M Müller; T Burchardt; R Willers; J I Epstein; R Ackermann; H E Gabbert; A de la Taille; M A Rubin
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-04-08       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists.

Authors:  Yasushi Nakai; Nobumichi Tanaka; Keiji Shimada; Noboru Konishi; Makito Miyake; Satoshi Anai; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kunal Nagpal; Davis Foote; Yun Liu; Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen; Ellery Wulczyn; Fraser Tan; Niels Olson; Jenny L Smith; Arash Mohtashamian; James H Wren; Greg S Corrado; Robert MacDonald; Lily H Peng; Mahul B Amin; Andrew J Evans; Ankur R Sangoi; Craig H Mermel; Jason D Hipp; Martin C Stumpe
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-06-07

9.  Agreement of two pre-trained deep-learning neural networks built with transfer learning with six pathologists on 6000 patches of prostate cancer from Gleason2019 Challenge.

Authors:  Mircea Sebastian Şerbănescu; Carmen Nicoleta Oancea; Costin Teodor Streba; Iancu Emil Pleşea; Daniel Pirici; Liliana Streba; Răzvan Mihail Pleşea
Journal:  Rom J Morphol Embryol       Date:  2020 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.033

10.  Radio-pathomic mapping model generated using annotations from five pathologists reliably distinguishes high-grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sean D McGarry; John D Bukowy; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Allison K Lowman; Michael Brehler; Samuel Bobholz; Andrew Nencka; Alex Barrington; Kenneth Jacobsohn; Jackson Unteriner; Petar Duvnjak; Michael Griffin; Mark Hohenwalter; Tucker Keuter; Wei Huang; Tatjana Antic; Gladell Paner; Watchareepohn Palangmonthip; Anjishnu Banerjee; Peter S LaViolette
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-09-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.