Literature DB >> 2069137

Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer.

C di Loreto1, B Fitzpatrick, S Underhill, D H Kim, H E Dytch, H Galera-Davidson, M Bibbo.   

Abstract

Three pathologists evaluated a number of designated architectural features to assign grades to 41 cases of well- to moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and their opinions were compared. The consensus opinion was obtained and evaluated against objective measurements of glandular architecture that were obtained by morphometric techniques. The observers agreed on gland size, gland uniformity, and the number of glands per field in only 49%, 31%, and 39% of cases, respectively. There were significant differences in the Gleason grades assigned by observers. Paired matching of individual Gleason grades showed agreement among observers in 44% (18 of 41), 56% (23 of 41), and 75% (31 of 41) of cases, respectively. This level of interobserver disagreement occurred even though cases with predominant patterns were selected carefully and those with variable patterns were excluded. A direct relationship appears to exist between increasing Gleason grade and increasing glandular variability, and there is an inverse relationship between Gleason grade, gland lumen area, and the number of glandular nuclei, as assessed by a group of pathologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2069137     DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/96.1.70

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9173            Impact factor:   2.493


  6 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

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

3.  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

4.  Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

Authors:  Natasha C Townsend; Karen Ruth; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric M Horwitz; Mark Sobczak; Robert G Uzzo; Rosalia Viterbo; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Differences in Upgrading of Prostate Cancer in Prostatectomies between Community and Academic Practices.

Authors:  Franklin Lee; Henry Gottsch; William J Ellis; Lawrence D True; Daniel W Lin; Jonathan L Wright
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2013-10-24

6.  Subspecialty surgical pathologist's performances as triage pathologists on a telepathology-enabled quality assurance surgical pathology service: A human factors study.

Authors:  Beth L Braunhut; Anna R Graham; Fangru Lian; Phyllis D Webster; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Achyut K Bhattacharyya; Ronald S Weinstein
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2014-05-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.