Literature DB >> 21146858

Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial.

George J Netto1, Mario Eisenberger, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the agreement between the local pathologist findings and central pathologist findings using data from the TAX 3501 trial. TAX 3501 was a randomized, multinational trial comparing the outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel after radical prostatectomy (RP). Patient eligibility was determined by a minimal 5-year progression-free survival estimate of 60% using Kattan's nomogram.
METHODS: The pathologic findings were reassessed in 257 consecutive RP specimens by 2 central pathologists and compared with the local pathologist data.
RESULTS: For the Gleason score, agreement was found in 181 (70%) of 257 cases, upgrading in 57 (75%), and downgrading in 25% of the RP specimens The most frequent upgrade was from Gleason score 7 to 8 or 9 and downgrading from Gleason score 8 to 7. Of the upgrades and downgrades, 37% and 21% were of 2 Gleason score points, respectively. For the tumor extent, agreement was found in 179 (70%) of 256 specimens, with upstaging in 70 (91%) and downstaging in 9%. The most frequent upstage was from focal to extensive extraprostatic extension (45%). For seminal vesicle invasion, agreement was found for 238 (93%) of 256 RP specimens Almost equal rates of underdiagnosing and overdiagnosing seminal vesicle invasion was observed. For margin status, agreement was present for 229 (89%) of 256 cases. The central pathologist review led to reclassification as a positive margin in 17 cases and a negative margin in 10. For lymph node status, 2 (1%) of 210 RP specimens had positive nodes identified only by the central pathologist. Agreement was observed in 154 negative and 54 positive cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant interobserver variations were found between the central and local pathologists. From the central pathologist review, the progression-free survival estimates were altered in 31 patients (13%), including 22 who were reassigned a greater risk estimate, rendering them study eligible. Thus, interobserver variability affected prognostication and trial accrual.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21146858      PMCID: PMC3449146          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  19 in total

Review 1.  Algorithms for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; James Eastham
Journal:  Clin Prostate Cancer       Date:  2003-03

Review 2.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Mahul Amin; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Lars Egevad; Peter A Humphrey; Gregor Mikuz; Don Newling; Sten Nilsson; Wael Sakr; John R Srigley; Thomas M Wheeler; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl       Date:  2005-05

3.  A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States.

Authors:  Tetsunari Oyama; William C Allsbrook; Kohei Kurokawa; Hadzki Matsuda; Atsuki Segawa; Takaaki Sano; Keiji Suzuki; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 4.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911).

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Laurence Collette; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi DaPozzo; Jean-François Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Michel Bolla
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; John Srigley; David Grignon; Peter Humphrey
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Adv Anat Pathol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.875

9.  Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Axel Glaessgen; Hans Hamberg; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Birgitta Sundelin; Bo Nilsson; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 4.064

10.  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

View more
  23 in total

1.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

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

2.  Multi-objective Parameter Auto-tuning for Tissue Image Segmentation Workflows.

Authors:  Luis F R Taveira; Tahsin Kurc; Alba C M A Melo; Jun Kong; Erich Bremer; Joel H Saltz; George Teodoro
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Nuclear Stat5a/b predicts early recurrence and prostate cancer-specific death in patients treated by radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tuomas Mirtti; Benjamin E Leiby; Junaid Abdulghani; Elina Aaltonen; Miia Pavela; Anita Mamtani; Kalle Alanen; Lars Egevad; Torvald Granfors; Andreas Josefsson; Par Stattin; Anders Bergh; Marja T Nevalainen
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 3.466

4.  Molecular preservation by extraction and fixation, mPREF: a method for small molecule biomarker analysis and histology on exactly the same tissue.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Shuster; Raymond S Lance; Dean A Troyer
Journal:  BMC Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-12-21

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

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

6.  High-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma present in a single biopsy core is associated with increased extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margins at prostatectomy.

Authors:  Alcides Chaux; Daniel A Fajardo; Nilda Gonzalez-Roibon; Alan W Partin; Mario Eisenberger; Theodore L DeWeese; George J Netto
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jacob E Tallman; Vignesh T Packiam; Kristen E Wroblewski; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  An immunohistochemical signature comprising PTEN, MYC, and Ki67 predicts progression in prostate cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel after prostatectomy.

Authors:  Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Daniel Keizman; Zhe Zhang; Bora Gurel; Tamara L Lotan; Jessica L Hicks; Helen L Fedor; Michael A Carducci; Angelo M De Marzo; Mario A Eisenberger
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Revisiting tumour aneuploidy - the place of ploidy assessment in the molecular era.

Authors:  Håvard E Danielsen; Manohar Pradhan; Marco Novelli
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.