Literature DB >> 18708939

Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Andrew J Evans1, Pauline C Henry, Theodorus H Van der Kwast, Douglas C Tkachuk, Kemp Watson, Gina A Lockwood, Neil E Fleshner, Carol Cheung, Eric C Belanger, Mahul B Amin, Liliane Boccon-Gibod, David G Bostwick, Lars Egevad, Jonathan I Epstein, David J Grignon, Edward C Jones, Rodolfo Montironi, Madeleine Moussa, Joan M Sweet, Kiril Trpkov, Thomas M Wheeler, John R Srigley.   

Abstract

Accurate Gleason score, pathologic stage, and surgical margin (SM) information is critical for the planning of post-radical prostatectomy management in patients with prostate cancer. Although interobserver variability for Gleason score among urologic pathologists has been well documented, such data for pathologic stage and SM assessment are limited. We report the first study to address interobserver variability in a group of expert pathologists concerning extraprostatic soft tissue (EPE) and SM interpretation for radical prostatectomy specimens. A panel of 3 urologic pathologists selected 6 groups of 10 slides designated as being positive, negative, or equivocal for either EPE or SM based on unanimous agreement. Twelve expert urologic pathologists, who were blinded to the panel diagnoses, reviewed 40x whole-slide scans and provided diagnoses for EPE and SM on each slide. On the basis of panel diagnoses, as the gold standard, specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy values were high for both EPE (87.5%, 95.0%, and 91.2%) and SM (97.5%, 83.3%, and 90.4%). Overall kappa values for all 60 slides were 0.74 for SM and 0.63 for EPE. The kappa values were higher for slides with definitive gold standard EPE (kappa=0.81) and SM (kappa=0.73) diagnoses when compared with the EPE (kappa=0.29) and SM (kappa=0.62) equivocal slides. This difference was markedly pronounced for EPE. Urologic pathologists show good to excellent agreement when evaluating EPE and SM. Interobserver variability for EPE and SM interpretation was principally related to the lack of a clearly definable prostatic capsule and crush/thermal artifact along the edge of the gland, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18708939     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817fb3a0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  35 in total

1.  Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Jacqueline Bachofner; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Karim Saba; Ashkan Mortezavi; Basil Kaufmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Peter Wild; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Molecular sampling of prostate cancer: a dilemma for predicting disease progression.

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

3.  Automatic cancer detection on digital histopathology images of mid-gland radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Wenchao Han; Carol Johnson; Andrew Warner; Mena Gaed; Jose A Gomez; Madeleine Moussa; Joseph Chin; Stephen Pautler; Glenn Bauman; Aaron D Ward
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-07-16

4.  Impact of positive surgical margins on oncological outcome following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): long-term results.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Carsten Stephan; Annett Klutzny; Stefan Hinz; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ergin Kilic; Michael Lein; Steffen Weikert; Kurt Miller; Ahmed Magheli
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: What should we care about?

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Yann Neuzillet; Camelia Radulescu; Jean-Marie Hervé; Vincent Molinié; Thierry Lebret
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Dealing with inter-expert variability in retinopathy of prematurity: A machine learning approach.

Authors:  V Bolón-Canedo; E Ataer-Cansizoglu; D Erdogmus; J Kalpathy-Cramer; O Fontenla-Romero; A Alonso-Betanzos; M F Chiang
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Andrew Evans; John Srigley; Joseph L Chin; Bish Bora; Amber Hunter; Robin McLeod; Neil E Fleshner
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Metka Volavšek; Ana Blanca; Rodolfo Montironi; Liang Cheng; Maria R Raspollini; Nuno Vau; Jorge Fonseca; Francesco Pierconti; Antonio Lopez-Beltran
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence.

Authors:  Jason P Izard; Lawrence D True; Philip May; William J Ellis; Paul H Lange; Bruce Dalkin; Daniel W Lin; Rodney A Schmidt; Jonathan L Wright
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Prognostic Utility of a New mRNA Expression Signature of Gleason Score.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.