Literature DB >> 2340371

Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems.

M P Gallee1, F J Ten Kate, P G Mulder, J H Blom, R O van der Heul.   

Abstract

The prognostic accuracy of 5 histological grading systems (Broders, Anderson, Mostofi, Gleason and Mostofi-Schroeder) was compared. Grading was performed on 50 prostatectomy specimens by 5 pathologists. The results were averaged so as to reduce the impact of inter-observer variation. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the relationship between average grading scores and both time-to-recurrence and time-to-death by prostatic carcinoma. Age at surgery was considered to be a possible confounding factor and adjusted accordingly. The prognostic impact of the 5 grading systems (related to both recurrence and death caused by prostatic carcinoma) was judged by the likelihood ratio (LR) test score (chi 2 distributed with 1 df); for time-to-recurrence for the Mostofi-Schroeder score the LR was 6.54 and for the Gleason system it was 1.79. A stepwise procedure demonstrated that the best prognostic performance was reached with the Mostofi-Schroeder and Broders systems used together (with Mostofi-Schroeder weighted 1.5 times larger than Broders). For time-to-recurrence the median grading result was also used, giving results similar to the mean grading result. For time-to-death from prostatic carcinoma the LR test scores for all grading systems were relatively low. In this analysis the outcome of the Gleason system showed a minimum of prognostic ability, whereas the Broders and Mostofi-Schroeder systems had a reasonable predictive ability. Since the inter-observer variation of the Mostofi-Schroeder system was large, the Broders system is preferable. The restrictions and implications of this study are discussed and a brief review of the prognostic importance of grading of prostatic carcinoma is presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2340371     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14758.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Urol        ISSN: 0007-1331


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  S O Ozdamar; S Sarikaya; L Yildiz; M K Atilla; B Kandemir; S Yildiz
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 4.  Emerging Themes in Image Informatics and Molecular Analysis for Digital Pathology.

Authors:  Rohit Bhargava; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 9.590

5.  Prostatic carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors.

Authors:  A Berner; S Harvei; S Tretli; S D Fosså; J M Nesland
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Subspecialty surgical pathologist's performances as triage pathologists on a telepathology-enabled quality assurance surgical pathology service: A human factors study.

Authors:  Beth L Braunhut; Anna R Graham; Fangru Lian; Phyllis D Webster; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Achyut K Bhattacharyya; Ronald S Weinstein
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2014-05-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.