OBJECTIVES: Due to PSA screening and increased awareness, prostate cancer (PCa) is identified earlier resulting in smaller diagnostic samples on prostate needle biopsy. Because Gleason grading plays a critical role in treatment planning, we undertook a controlled study to evaluate interobserver variability among German pathologists to grade small PCas using a series of tissue microarray (TMA) images. METHODS: We have previously demonstrated excellent agreement in Gleason grading using TMAs among expert genitourinary pathologists. In the current study, we identified 331 TMA images (95% PCa and 5% benign) to be evaluated by an expert PCa pathologist and subsequently by practicing pathologists throughout Germany. The images were presented using the Bacus Webslide Browser on a CD-ROM. Evaluations were kept anonymous and participant's scoring was compared to the expert's results. RESULTS: A total of 29 German pathologists analysed an average of 278 images. Mean percentage of TMA images which had been assigned the same Gleason score (GS) as done by the expert was 45.7%. GSs differed by no more than one point (+/-1) in 83.5% of the TMA samples evaluated. The respondents were able to correctly assign a GS into clinically relevant categories (i.e. <7, 7, >7) in 68.3% of cases. A total of 75.9% respondents under-graded the TMA images. Gleason grading agreement with the expert reviewer correlated with the number of biopsies evaluated by the pathologist per week. Years of diagnostic experience, self-description as a urologic pathologist or affiliation with a university hospital did not correlate with the pathologist's performance. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of participants under-graded the small tumors. Clinically relevant GS categories were correctly assigned in 68% of cases. This raises a potentially significant problem for pathologists, who have not had as much experience evaluating small PCas.
OBJECTIVES: Due to PSA screening and increased awareness, prostate cancer (PCa) is identified earlier resulting in smaller diagnostic samples on prostate needle biopsy. Because Gleason grading plays a critical role in treatment planning, we undertook a controlled study to evaluate interobserver variability among German pathologists to grade small PCas using a series of tissue microarray (TMA) images. METHODS: We have previously demonstrated excellent agreement in Gleason grading using TMAs among expert genitourinary pathologists. In the current study, we identified 331 TMA images (95% PCa and 5% benign) to be evaluated by an expert PCa pathologist and subsequently by practicing pathologists throughout Germany. The images were presented using the Bacus Webslide Browser on a CD-ROM. Evaluations were kept anonymous and participant's scoring was compared to the expert's results. RESULTS: A total of 29 German pathologists analysed an average of 278 images. Mean percentage of TMA images which had been assigned the same Gleason score (GS) as done by the expert was 45.7%. GSs differed by no more than one point (+/-1) in 83.5% of the TMA samples evaluated. The respondents were able to correctly assign a GS into clinically relevant categories (i.e. <7, 7, >7) in 68.3% of cases. A total of 75.9% respondents under-graded the TMA images. Gleason grading agreement with the expert reviewer correlated with the number of biopsies evaluated by the pathologist per week. Years of diagnostic experience, self-description as a urologic pathologist or affiliation with a university hospital did not correlate with the pathologist's performance. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of participants under-graded the small tumors. Clinically relevant GS categories were correctly assigned in 68% of cases. This raises a potentially significant problem for pathologists, who have not had as much experience evaluating small PCas.
Authors: C di Loreto; B Fitzpatrick; S Underhill; D H Kim; H E Dytch; H Galera-Davidson; M Bibbo Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 1991-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Alexandre De la Taille; Annick Viellefond; Nicole Berger; Eric Boucher; Marc De Fromont; Alain Fondimare; Vincent Molinié; Dominique Piron; Mathilde Sibony; Frédéric Staroz; Marie Triller; Eric Peltier; Nicolas Thiounn; Mark A Rubin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.466
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
Authors: Andrea Sboner; Francesca Demichelis; Stefano Calza; Yudi Pawitan; Sunita R Setlur; Yujin Hoshida; Sven Perner; Hans-Olov Adami; Katja Fall; Lorelei A Mucci; Philip W Kantoff; Meir Stampfer; Swen-Olof Andersson; Eberhard Varenhorst; Jan-Erik Johansson; Mark B Gerstein; Todd R Golub; Mark A Rubin; Ove Andrén Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak Journal: Radiologe Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Sam F Peisch; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Travis Gerke; Rosina Lis; Jennifer R Rider; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci; Massimo Loda; Kathryn L Penney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531