CONTEXT: Gleason grade is the most widely used grading system for prostatic carcinoma and is recommended by World Health Organization. It is essential that there should be good interobserver reproducibility of this grading system as it has important implications in patient management. AIM: To assess interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: A total of 20 cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma were scored using Gleason grade by 21 general pathologists. The scores were then compared using κ-coefficient and consensus score. RESULTS: For Gleason score groups (2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10) overall agreement with consensus score was 68%. Exact agreement for Gleason scores with consensus score was 43.3% and 92.3% within ±1 of the consensus score. κ coefficient for primary grade ranged from -0.32 to 0.92 with 60% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range; and for secondary grade κ ranged from -0.30 to 0.62 with 78% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range. Kappa for Gleason scores ranged from -0.13 to 0.55 with 80% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range; and for Gleason score groups κ ranged from -0.11 to 0.82 with 68.5% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range. CONCLUSIONS: In our study interobserver reproducibility of Gleason scores among general pathologists was at lower level and it highlights the need to improve the observer reproducibility by continuous educational sessions and taking second opinion in cases where grade could significantly influence management.
CONTEXT: Gleason grade is the most widely used grading system for prostatic carcinoma and is recommended by World Health Organization. It is essential that there should be good interobserver reproducibility of this grading system as it has important implications in patient management. AIM: To assess interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: A total of 20 cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma were scored using Gleason grade by 21 general pathologists. The scores were then compared using κ-coefficient and consensus score. RESULTS: For Gleason score groups (2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10) overall agreement with consensus score was 68%. Exact agreement for Gleason scores with consensus score was 43.3% and 92.3% within ±1 of the consensus score. κ coefficient for primary grade ranged from -0.32 to 0.92 with 60% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range; and for secondary grade κ ranged from -0.30 to 0.62 with 78% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range. Kappa for Gleason scores ranged from -0.13 to 0.55 with 80% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range; and for Gleason score groups κ ranged from -0.11 to 0.82 with 68.5% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range. CONCLUSIONS: In our study interobserver reproducibility of Gleason scores among general pathologists was at lower level and it highlights the need to improve the observer reproducibility by continuous educational sessions and taking second opinion in cases where grade could significantly influence management.
Authors: Asim Qureshi; Ritu Lakhtakia; Maiya AL Bahri; Ibrahim Al Haddabi; Anna Saparamadu; Asem Shalaby; Marwa Al Riyami; Gauhar Rizvi Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Stefan Steurer; Benjamin Hager; Franziska Büscheck; Doris Höflmayer; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Sarah Minner; Till S Clauditz; Claudia Hube-Magg; Andreas M Luebke; Ronald Simon; Jakob R Izbicki; Eike Burandt; Guido Sauter; Christoph Fraune; Sören Weidemann; Thorsten Schlomm; Hans Heinzer; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Asmus Heumann Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Sören A Weidemann; Charlotte Sauer; Andreas M Luebke; Christina Möller-Koop; Stefan Steurer; Claudia Hube-Magg; Franziska Büscheck; Doris Höflmayer; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Till S Clauditz; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Cosima Göbel; Patrick Lebok; David Dum; Christoph Fraune; Simon Kind; Sarah Minner; Jakob Izbicki; Thorsten Schlomm; Hartwig Huland; Hans Heinzer; Eike Burandt; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Asmus Heumann Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ahmed Serag; Adrian Ion-Margineanu; Hammad Qureshi; Ryan McMillan; Marie-Judith Saint Martin; Jim Diamond; Paul O'Reilly; Peter Hamilton Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Morton Freytag; Martina Kluth; Elena Bady; Claudia Hube-Magg; Georgia Makrypidi-Fraune; Hans Heinzer; Doris Höflmayer; Sören Weidemann; Ria Uhlig; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Christian Bernreuther; Corinna Wittmer; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Sarah Minner; David Dum; Andrea Hinsch; Andreas M Luebke; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm; Katharina Möller Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Andreas Marx; Andreas M Luebke; Till S Clauditz; Stefan Steurer; Christoph Fraune; Claudia Hube-Magg; Franziska Büscheck; Doris Höflmayer; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Christina Möller-Koop; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Cosima Göbel; Patrick Lebok; David Dum; Simon Kind; Sarah Minner; Jakob Izbicki; Thorsten Schlomm; Hartwig Huland; Hans Heinzer; Eike Burandt; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Jan Meiners Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 3.434