Literature DB >> 26099009

Diagnosis of "Poorly Formed Glands" Gleason Pattern 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists With Recommendations.

Ming Zhou1, Jianbo Li, Liang Cheng, Lars Egevad, Fang-Ming Deng, Lakshmi Priya Kunju, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Jonathan Melamed, Rohit Mehra, Savvas Mendrinos, Adeboye O Osunkoya, Gladell Paner, Steve S Shen, Toyonori Tsuzuki, Kiril Trpkov, Wei Tian, Ximing Yang, Rajal B Shah.   

Abstract

Accurate recognition of Gleason pattern (GP) 4 prostate carcinoma (PCa) on needle biopsy is critical for patient management and prognostication. "Poorly formed glands" are the most common GP4 subpattern. We studied the diagnostic reproducibility and the quantitative threshold of grading GP4 "poorly formed glands" and the criteria to distinguish them from tangentially sectioned GP3 glands. Seventeen urologic pathologists were first queried for the definition of "poorly formed glands" using cases representing a spectrum of PCa glandular differentiation. Cancer glands with no or rare lumens, elongated compressed glands, and elongated nests were considered "poorly formed glands" by consensus. Participants then graded a second set of 23 PCa cases that potentially contained "poorly formed glands" with a fair interobserver agreement (κ = 0.34). The consensus diagnoses, defined as agreement by > 70% participants, were then correlated with the quantitative (≤ 5, 6 to 10, >10) and topographic features of poorly formed glands (clustered, immediately adjacent to, and intermixed with other well-formed PCa glands) in each case. Poorly formed glands immediately adjacent to other well-formed glands regardless of their number and small foci of ≤ 5 poorly formed glands regardless of their location were not graded as GP4. In contrast, large foci of >10 poorly formed glands that were not immediately adjacent to well-formed glands were graded as GP4. Grading "poorly formed glands" is challenging. Some morphologic features are, however, reproducible for and against a GP4 diagnosis. This study represents an important step in standardization of grading of "poorly formed glands" based on quantitative and topographic morphologic features.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26099009     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000457

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  14 in total

1.  Multi-resolution open-top light-sheet microscopy to enable efficient 3D pathology workflows.

Authors:  Lindsey A Barner; Adam K Glaser; Hongyi Huang; Lawrence D True; Jonathan T C Liu
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.732

2.  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

3.  Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution.

Authors:  Sonja D Chen; Joseph L Fava; Ali Amin
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  Prostate Cancer Pathology: Recent Updates and Controversies.

Authors:  Jennifer K Sehn
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2018 Mar-Apr

Review 5.  Harnessing non-destructive 3D pathology.

Authors:  Jonathan T C Liu; Adam K Glaser; Kaustav Bera; Lawrence D True; Nicholas P Reder; Kevin W Eliceiri; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 25.671

Review 6.  On cribriform prostate cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Theodorus van der Kwast; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

7.  Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kunal Nagpal; Davis Foote; Yun Liu; Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen; Ellery Wulczyn; Fraser Tan; Niels Olson; Jenny L Smith; Arash Mohtashamian; James H Wren; Greg S Corrado; Robert MacDonald; Lily H Peng; Mahul B Amin; Andrew J Evans; Ankur R Sangoi; Craig H Mermel; Jason D Hipp; Martin C Stumpe
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-06-07

8.  Light-sheet microscopy for slide-free non-destructive pathology of large clinical specimens.

Authors:  Adam K Glaser; Nicholas P Reder; Ye Chen; Erin F McCarty; Chengbo Yin; Linpeng Wei; Yu Wang; Lawrence D True; Jonathan T C Liu
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 25.671

9.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 6.298

Review 10.  Clinical significance of subtypes of Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Oudai Hassan; Andres Matoso
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.