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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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