Literature DB >> 29359484

Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading.

Lars Egevad1, Brett Delahunt2, Daniel M Berney3, David G Bostwick4, John Cheville5, Eva Comperat6, Andrew J Evans7, Samson W Fine8, David J Grignon9, Peter A Humphrey10, Jonas Hörnblad1, Kenneth A Iczkowski11, James G Kench12, Glen Kristiansen13, Katia R M Leite14, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi15, Jesse K McKenney16, Jon Oxley17, Chin-Chen Pan18, Hemamali Samaratunga19, John R Srigley20, Hiroyuki Takahashi21, Lawrence D True22, Toyonori Tsuzuki23, Theo van der Kwast7, Murali Varma24, Ming Zhou25, Mark Clements26.   

Abstract

AIMS: Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two-thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members are able to access a limited number of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  International Society of Urological Pathology; database; grading; prostate; standardisation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29359484     DOI: 10.1111/his.13471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histopathology        ISSN: 0309-0167            Impact factor:   5.087


  9 in total

1.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Maarten de Rooij; Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 16.430

Review 4.  All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Derek J Lomas; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; Hemamali Samaratunga; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Henrik Olsson; Peter Ström; Cecilia Lindskog; Tomi Häkkinen; Kimmo Kartasalo; Martin Eklund; Pekka Ruusuvuori
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Detecting and grading prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens through deep learning techniques.

Authors:  Petronio Augusto de Souza Melo; Carmen Liane Neubarth Estivallet; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas; Katia Ramos Moreira Leite
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 2.365

Review 7.  A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging.

Authors:  Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-10-10

8.  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

9.  Identification of areas of grading difficulties in prostate cancer and comparison with artificial intelligence assisted grading.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Daniela Swanberg; Brett Delahunt; Peter Ström; Kimmo Kartasalo; Henrik Olsson; Dan M Berney; David G Bostwick; Andrew J Evans; Peter A Humphrey; Kenneth A Iczkowski; James G Kench; Glen Kristiansen; Katia R M Leite; Jesse K McKenney; Jon Oxley; Chin-Chen Pan; Hemamali Samaratunga; John R Srigley; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Theo van der Kwast; Murali Varma; Ming Zhou; Mark Clements; Martin Eklund
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 4.064

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.