Literature DB >> 21679996

The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study.

Jesse K McKenney1, Jeff Simko, Michael Bonham, Lawrence D True, Dean Troyer, Sarah Hawley, Lisa F Newcomb, Ladan Fazli, Lakshmi P Kunju, Marlo M Nicolas, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Xiaotun Zhang, Peter R Carroll, James D Brooks.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the reproducibility of Gleason grading as relevant to the clinical treatment of men on active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sets of digital images of prostatic adenocarcinoma in biopsies were reviewed and assigned Gleason scores by a total of 11 pathologists from 7 institutions. Interobserver and intra-observer reproducibility were assessed for assignment of the highest Gleason pattern (3 vs 4 or higher). We also identified 97 consecutive patients on active surveillance. Prostate biopsy glass slides from 82 of the patients were available for re-review and the frequency of carcinoma requiring the distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from 4 was determined.
RESULTS: Interobserver reproducibility for classic Gleason patterns was substantial (Light's κ 0.76). Interobserver reproducibility for the histological distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from Gleason pattern 4 was only fair (Light's κ 0.27). Intra-observer reproducibility ranged from 65% to 100% (mean 81.5%). Of the 82 patients on active surveillance 61 had carcinoma and 15 (24.5%) had a set of biopsies with at least 1 focus in which the distinction between tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 and poorly formed pattern 4 glands had to be considered.
CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of grading classic Gleason patterns is high. However, variability in grading occurred when distinguishing between tangentially sectioned pattern 3 glands and the poorly formed gland subset of pattern 4. Developing universally accepted histological and/or molecular criteria to distinguish these patterns and subsequently characterizing their natural history would be useful when treating patients on active surveillance.
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21679996     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  36 in total

Review 1.  Molecular classification of prostate cancer progression: foundation for marker-driven treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Logothetis; Gary E Gallick; Sankar N Maity; Jeri Kim; Ana Aparicio; Eleni Efstathiou; Sue-Hwa Lin
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 39.397

2.  Prostate cancer: variations in Gleason grading during active surveillance.

Authors:  Sarah Payton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Welty; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.309

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.  Role of active surveillance in the management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Allison S Glass; Matthew R Cooperberg; Maxwell V Meng; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

6.  Methylome-wide Sequencing Detects DNA Hypermethylation Distinguishing Indolent from Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Bhasin; Byron H Lee; Lars Matkin; Margaret G Taylor; Bo Hu; Yaomin Xu; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Eric A Klein; Angela H Ting
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 9.423

7.  Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jen-Jane Liu; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Iona Cheng; James D Brooks
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.306

Review 8.  Active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: current and future challenges.

Authors:  Christopher Sejong Han; Jaspreet Singh Parihar; Isaac Yi Kim
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2013-12-25

9.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort.

Authors:  Lisa F Newcomb; Ian M Thompson; Hilary D Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Ladan Fazli; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Priya Kunju; Raymond S Lance; Jesse K McKenney; Maxwell V Meng; Marlo M Nicolas; Martin G Sanda; Jeffry Simko; Alan So; Maria S Tretiakova; Dean A Troyer; Lawrence D True; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Jeff Virgin; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Yingye Zheng; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Esther I Verhoef; Ewout W Steyerberg; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 7.842

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.