Literature DB >> 20970164

Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies.

Paula A Rodriguez-Urrego1, Angel M Cronin, Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie, Anuradha Gopalan, Satish K Tickoo, Victor E Reuter, Samson W Fine.   

Abstract

Advances in whole slide digital imaging in the past decade necessitate validation of these tools in each organ system in advance of clinical adoption. We assessed reproducibility in reporting prostate needle biopsy parameters among urologic pathologists using routine and digital microscopy in a consultation/second opinion-like setting. Four urologic pathologists evaluated a single core level from 50 diagnostically challenging needle biopsy specimens by routine microscopy and whole slide digital imaging. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement were calculated for primary and secondary Gleason grades, Gleason score, tumor quantitation (percentage and size in millimeters), and perineural invasion. Interobserver agreement for routine microscopy was excellent for primary Gleason grade (κ = 0.72) and good for all other parameters (κ ranging from 0.36 to 0.55). Whole slide digital imaging assessment yielded similar agreement for all parameters. Intraobserver agreement for primary Gleason grade and Gleason score was very good to excellent for all pathologists (all κ ≥ 0.65 and ≥ 0.73, respectively). Size of tumor in millimeters consistently displayed higher levels of agreement than percentage of tumor across media and pathologists. Digital assessment of routinely reported cancer parameters on prostatic needle biopsy for a given scanned core level is comparable to that of routine microscopy. These findings imply that histologic interpretation using dynamic whole slide images may accurately simulate routine microscopic evaluation in the consultation setting. Implementation of whole slide digital imaging in these scenarios may significantly reduce the workload of large referral centers in the near future and impact the manner in which pathologists seek second opinion consultation on challenging cases.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20970164     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.07.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  21 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.  The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review.

Authors:  Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Lady Paola Aristizábal Arboleda; Natalia Rangel Palmier; Jéssica Montenegro Fonsêca; Mariana de Pauli Paglioni; Wagner Gomes-Silva; Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro; Thaís Bianca Brandão; Luciana Estevam Simonato; Paul M Speight; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Cristhian Camilo Madrid Troconis; Alan Roger Santos-Silva
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-01-26       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  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

4.  Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Luca Incrocci; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 7.842

5.  Digital versus light microscopy assessment of extraprostatic extension in radical prostatectomy samples.

Authors:  Metka Volavšek; Vanessa Henriques; Ana Blanca; Rodolfo Montironi; Liang Cheng; Maria R Raspollini; Alessia Cimadamore; Nuno Vau; Francesco Pierconti; Antonio Lopez-Beltran
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 6.  Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.

Authors:  Liron Pantanowitz; John H Sinard; Walter H Henricks; Lisa A Fatheree; Alexis B Carter; Lydia Contis; Bruce A Beckwith; Andrew J Evans; Avtar Lal; Anil V Parwani
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 5.534

7.  Verification and Validation of Digital Pathology (Whole Slide Imaging) for Primary Histopathological Diagnosis: All Wales Experience.

Authors:  M Babawale; A Gunavardhan; J Walker; T Corfield; P Huey; A Savage; A Bansal; M Atkinson; H Abdelsalam; E Raweily; A Christian; I Evangelou; D Thomas; J Shannon; E Youd; P Brumwell; J Harrison; I Thompson; M Rashid; G Leopold; A Finall; S Roberts; D Housa; P Nedeva; A Davies; D Fletcher; Muhammad Aslam
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2021-01-23

8.  Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; Hemamali Samaratunga; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Henrik Olsson; Peter Ström; Cecilia Lindskog; Tomi Häkkinen; Kimmo Kartasalo; Martin Eklund; Pekka Ruusuvuori
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Diagnosis of dysplasia in upper gastro-intestinal tract biopsies through digital microscopy.

Authors:  Dorina Gui; Galen Cortina; Bita Naini; Steve Hart; Garrett Gerney; David Dawson; Sarah Dry
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2012-08-25

10.  Dissecting the Business Case for Adoption and Implementation of Digital Pathology: A White Paper from the Digital Pathology Association.

Authors:  Giovanni Lujan; Jennifer C Quigley; Douglas Hartman; Anil Parwani; Brian Roehmholdt; Bryan Van Meter; Orly Ardon; Matthew G Hanna; Dan Kelly; Chelsea Sowards; Michael Montalto; Marilyn Bui; Mark D Zarella; Victoria LaRosa; Gerard Slootweg; Juan Antonio Retamero; Mark C Lloyd; James Madory; Doug Bowman
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2021-04-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.