Literature DB >> 16681679

A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies.

J Melia1, R Moseley, R Y Ball, D F R Griffiths, K Grigor, P Harnden, M Jarmulowicz, L J McWilliam, R Montironi, M Waller, S Moss, M C Parkinson.   

Abstract

AIMS: The frequency of prostatic core biopsies to detect cancer has been increasing with more widespread prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. Gleason score has important implications for patient management but morphological reproducibility data for British practice are limited. Using literature-based criteria nine uropathologists took part in a reproducibility study.
METHODS: Each of the nine participants submitted slides from consecutive cases of biopsy-diagnosed cancer assigned to the Gleason score groups 2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10 in the original report. A random selection of slides was taken within each group and examined by all pathologists, who were blind to the original score. Over six circulations, new slides were mixed with previously read slides, resulting in a total of 47 of 81 slides being read more than once.
RESULTS: For the first readings of the 81 slides, the agreement with the consensus score was 78% and overall interobserver agreement was kappa 0.54 for Gleason score groups 2-4, 5-6, 7, 8-10. Kappa values for each category were 0.33, 0.56, 0.44 and 0.68, respectively. For the 47 slides read more than once, intra-observer agreement was 77%, kappa 0.66. The study identified problems in core biopsy interpretation of Gleason score at levels 2-4 and 7. Patterns illustrated by Gleason as 2 tended to be categorized as 3 because of the variable acinar size and unassessable lesional margin. In slides with consensus Gleason score 7, 13% of readings were scored 6 and in slides with consensus 6, 18% of readings were scored 7.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include the need to increase objectivity of the Gleason criteria but limits of descriptive morphology may have to be accepted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16681679     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02393.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histopathology        ISSN: 0309-0167            Impact factor:   5.087


  42 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.  Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study.

Authors:  Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland; Steffen Lebentrau; Sven Gunia; Stefan Koch; Christian Gilfrich; Jan Roigas; Bernd Hoschke; Maximilian Burger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  [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

4.  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

5.  PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-11-10

6.  Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.

Authors:  Thomas Seisen; Françoise Roudot-Thoraval; Pierre Olivier Bosset; Aurélien Beaugerie; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre De La Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in patients with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) without adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Aurélien Forgues; François Rozet; François Audenet; Adil Ouzzane; Rafaël Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Dominique Prapotnich; Xavier Cathelineau
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 4.226

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

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

9.  Prostate gland biopsies and prostatectomies: an Ontario community hospital experience.

Authors:  Ken J Newell; John F Amrhein; Rashmikant J Desai; Paul F Middlebrook; Todd M Webster; Barry W Sawka; Brian F Rudrick
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 10.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.