Literature DB >> 15156317

Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens.

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

Abstract

The Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer is calculated by adding primary and secondary Gleason grades with patterns occupying less than 5% of the tumour often not included despite their probable prognostic significance. A modified Gleason score (mGS) comprising primary and tertiary patterns of higher grade has been proposed, but its interobserver variability has yet to be elucidated. Slides from 69 consecutive prostatectomy specimens were circulated among four genitourinary pathologists. GS and mGS were assessed, and results were compared in pairs. Mean weighted kappa for GS and mGS were 0.56 (range 0.52-0.66) and 0.58 (range 0.49-0.74), respectively. The difference between GS and mGS was 0, 1 and 2 score units in 66%, 26% and 8%, respectively, mean 0.41 score units (range 0.24-0.51). The increment was greater for transition-zone tumours than for peripheral-zone tumours (0.63 and 0.35 score units, respectively, P=0.002). An odd mGS (5, 7 or 9) was more often given than an odd GS (77% and 62%, respectively, P<0.001). Disagreement between observers greater than 1 score unit was more common with mGS than GS (18% and 4%, respectively, P<0.001). In conclusion, overall mean weighted kappa for interobserver reproducibility of mGS is at least as high as that of GS. However, there is a clustering of mGS in odd scores, and severe disagreement is more commonly observed than with GS. Training of mGS assessment would possibly improve agreement. Tertiary Gleason patterns need to be better defined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15156317     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-004-1034-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  20 in total

1.  The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system.

Authors:  C C Pan; S R Potter; A W Partin; J I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist.

Authors:  W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 3.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; D J Grignon; M E Hammond; M B Amin; M Cohen; D Crawford; M Gospadarowicz; R S Kaplan; D S Miller; R Montironi; T F Pajak; A Pollack; J R Srigley; J W Yarbro
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 4.  Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Theodorus Kwast
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-01-16       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  A Gleason score of 7 predicts a worse outcome for prostate carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy.

Authors:  G A Green; A L Hanlon; T Al-Saleem; G E Hanks
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm.

Authors:  J D Kronz; M A Silberman; W C Allsbrook; J I Epstein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer.

Authors:  L Egevad; T Granfors; L Karlberg; A Bergh; P Stattin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications.

Authors:  E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J A Schalken; F M Debruyne; D J Ruiter
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 7.996

9.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  M Aihara; T M Wheeler; M Ohori; P T Scardino
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.649

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

Authors:  Axel Glaessgen; Hans Hamberg; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Birgitta Sundelin; Bo Nilsson; Lars Egevad
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  10 in total

1.  [Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].

Authors:  S Biesterfeld
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial.

Authors:  George J Netto; Mario Eisenberger; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Effect of DNA methylation on identification of aggressive prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joshi J Alumkal; Zhe Zhang; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Christina Bennett; Leslie A Mangold; Michael A Carducci; Alan W Partin; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Angelo M DeMarzo; James G Herman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 4.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

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

5.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging with digital histopathology in prostate.

Authors:  Jin Tae Kwak; Sandeep Sankineni; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Maria Merino; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.924

6.  [Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer: are there morphological findings?].

Authors:  B Helpap; L Egevad
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  On cribriform prostate cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Theodorus van der Kwast; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

8.  Statistical Analysis of Survival Models Using Feature Quantification on Prostate Cancer Histopathological Images.

Authors:  Jian Ren; Eric A Singer; Evita Sadimin; David J Foran; Xin Qi
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2019-09-27

9.  Inter-observer variability of cribriform architecture and percent Gleason pattern 4 in prostate cancer: relation to clinical outcome.

Authors:  Margaretha A van der Slot; Eva Hollemans; Michael A den Bakker; Robert Hoedemaeker; Mike Kliffen; Leo M Budel; Natascha N T Goemaere; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 4.064

10.  Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning.

Authors:  Robert J Hoekstra; Ward J H Goossens; Alexander Beulens; Hilde van Herk; Brigiet M Hoevenaars; Joost de Baaij; Diederik M Somford; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jean-Paul A van Basten; H J Eric J Vrijhof
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-04-27
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.