BACKGROUND: To examine factors that affect accuracy and reliability of prostate cancer grade we compared Gleason scores documented in pathology reports and those assigned by urologic pathologists in a population-based study. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 318 prostate cancer cases was selected to ensure representation of whites and African-Americans and to include facilities of various types. The slides borrowed from reporting facilities were scanned and the resulting digital images were re-reviewed by two urologic pathologists. If the two urologic pathologists disagreed, a third urologic pathologist was asked to help arrive at a final "gold standard" result. The agreements between reviewers and between the pathology reports and the "gold standard" were examined by calculating kappa statistics. The determinants of discordance in Gleason scores were evaluated using multivariate models with results expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The kappa values (95% CI) reflecting agreement between the pathology reports and the "gold standard," were 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.68) for biopsies, and 0.37 (0.23, 0.51) for prostatectomies. Sixty three percent of discordant biopsies and 72% of discordant prostatectomies showed only minimal differences. Using freestanding laboratories as reference, the likelihood of discordance between pathology reports and expert-assigned biopsy Gleason scores was particularly elevated for small community hospitals (OR = 2.98; 95% CI: 1.73, 5.14). CONCLUSIONS: The level of agreement between pathology reports and expert review depends on the type of diagnosing facility, but may also depend on the level of expertise and specialization of individual pathologists.
BACKGROUND: To examine factors that affect accuracy and reliability of prostate cancer grade we compared Gleason scores documented in pathology reports and those assigned by urologic pathologists in a population-based study. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 318 prostate cancer cases was selected to ensure representation of whites and African-Americans and to include facilities of various types. The slides borrowed from reporting facilities were scanned and the resulting digital images were re-reviewed by two urologic pathologists. If the two urologic pathologists disagreed, a third urologic pathologist was asked to help arrive at a final "gold standard" result. The agreements between reviewers and between the pathology reports and the "gold standard" were examined by calculating kappa statistics. The determinants of discordance in Gleason scores were evaluated using multivariate models with results expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The kappa values (95% CI) reflecting agreement between the pathology reports and the "gold standard," were 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.68) for biopsies, and 0.37 (0.23, 0.51) for prostatectomies. Sixty three percent of discordant biopsies and 72% of discordant prostatectomies showed only minimal differences. Using freestanding laboratories as reference, the likelihood of discordance between pathology reports and expert-assigned biopsy Gleason scores was particularly elevated for small community hospitals (OR = 2.98; 95% CI: 1.73, 5.14). CONCLUSIONS: The level of agreement between pathology reports and expert review depends on the type of diagnosing facility, but may also depend on the level of expertise and specialization of individual pathologists.
Authors: Henrik Helin; Mikael Lundin; Johan Lundin; Paula Martikainen; Teuvo Tammela; Heikki Helin; Theo van der Kwast; Jorma Isola Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: D F R Griffiths; J Melia; L J McWilliam; R Y Ball; K Grigor; P Harnden; M Jarmulowicz; R Montironi; R Moseley; M Waller; S Moss; M C Parkinson Journal: Histopathology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey; Mahul B Amin; Sam S Chang; Lars Egevad; Jonathan I Epstein; David J Grignon; James M McKiernan; Rodolfo Montironi; Andrew A Renshaw; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Wheeler Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: J Melia; R Moseley; R Y Ball; D F R Griffiths; K Grigor; P Harnden; M Jarmulowicz; L J McWilliam; R Montironi; M Waller; S Moss; M C Parkinson Journal: Histopathology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Joan Alexander; Jude Kendall; Jean McIndoo; Linda Rodgers; Robert Aboukhalil; Dan Levy; Asya Stepansky; Guoli Sun; Lubomir Chobardjiev; Michael Riggs; Hilary Cox; Inessa Hakker; Dawid G Nowak; Juliana Laze; Elton Llukani; Abhishek Srivastava; Siobhan Gruschow; Shalini S Yadav; Brian Robinson; Gurinder Atwal; Lloyd C Trotman; Herbert Lepor; James Hicks; Michael Wigler; Alexander Krasnitz Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Xin Li; Yu Cai; Brendan Moloney; Yiyi Chen; Wei Huang; Mark Woods; Fergus V Coakley; William D Rooney; Mark G Garzotto; Charles S Springer Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Maria H Traka; Antonietta Melchini; Jack Coode-Bate; Omar Al Kadhi; Shikha Saha; Marianne Defernez; Perla Troncoso-Rey; Helen Kibblewhite; Carmel M O'Neill; Federico Bernuzzi; Laura Mythen; Jackie Hughes; Paul W Needs; Jack R Dainty; George M Savva; Robert D Mills; Richard Y Ball; Colin S Cooper; Richard F Mithen Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: M Shipitsin; C Small; S Choudhury; E Giladi; S Friedlander; J Nardone; S Hussain; A D Hurley; C Ernst; Y E Huang; H Chang; T P Nifong; D L Rimm; J Dunyak; M Loda; D M Berman; P Blume-Jensen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 7.640