Literature DB >> 30080706

Concordance of "Case Level" Global, Highest, and Largest Volume Cancer Grade Group on Needle Biopsy Versus Grade Group on Radical Prostatectomy.

Kiril Trpkov1, Sakkarn Sangkhamanon1, Asli Yilmaz1, Shaun A C Medlicott1, Bryan Donnelly2, Geoffrey Gotto2, Melissa Shea-Budgell3.   

Abstract

The practice of assigning "case level" biopsy Grade Group (GG) or Gleason Score is variable. To our knowledge, a comparison of the concordance of different biopsy "case level" GG with the prostatectomy GG has not been done in a post-2005 prostate cancer cohort. We evaluated the GG in 2527 patients who had biopsy and radical prostatectomy performed at our institution between 2005 and 2014. We compared the agreements, the upgrades, and the downgrades of 3 different "case level" biopsy GG, with the final GG: (1) Global GG (sum of most prevalent and highest Gleason grade in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); (2) Highest GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); and (3) Largest Volume Cancer GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen). The concordance between the biopsy and the final GG were evaluated using weighted kappa (κ) coefficient. The biopsy Global GG, Highest GG, and Largest Volume Cancer GG were the same as the final GG in 60.4%, 57.1%, and 54.3% cases, respectively (weighted κ values: 0.49, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively). When final GG contained tertiary 5, the overall GG agreement decreased: Global GG 41.5%, Highest GG 40.3%, and Largest Volume Cancer GG 37.1% (weighted κ: 0.22, 0.21, and 0.18, respectively). A subset analysis for cases in which the biopsy Global GG and Highest GG were different (n=180) showed an agreement of 62.4% (weighted κ: 0.37) and 18.8% (weighted κ: 0.16), respectively. In patients without a tertiary Gleason pattern on radical prostatectomy, the Global GG and the Highest GG were identical in 92.4% of biopsies. Assigning a biopsy "case level" Global GG versus using the Highest GG and the Largest Volume Cancer GG resulted in comparable and slightly improved agreement with the final GG in this cohort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30080706     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001137

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


  5 in total

1.  Target prostate biopsies: How best to report in synoptic format?

Authors:  Michelle R Downes; John R Srigley; Andrew Loblaw; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Theodorus van der Kwast
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Added Value of Biparametric MRI and TRUS-Guided Systematic Biopsies to Clinical Parameters in Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hailang Liu; Kun Tang; Ding Xia; Xinguang Wang; Wei Zhu; Liang Wang; Weimin Yang; Ejun Peng; Zhiqiang Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Predicting Prostate Cancer Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group at Radical Prostatectomy Using Machine Learning-Assisted Decision-Support Models.

Authors:  Hailang Liu; Kun Tang; Ejun Peng; Liang Wang; Ding Xia; Zhiqiang Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  Practice patterns related to prostate cancer grading: results of a 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society clinician survey.

Authors:  Samson W Fine; Kiril Trpkov; Mahul B Amin; Ferran Algaba; Manju Aron; Dilek E Baydar; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Fadi Brimo; John C Cheville; Maurizio Colecchia; Eva Comperat; Tony Costello; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Warick Delprado; Angelo M DeMarzo; Giovanna A Giannico; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Charles C Guo; Donna E Hansel; Michelle S Hirsch; Jiaoti Huang; Peter A Humphrey; Rafael E Jimenez; Francesca Khani; Max X Kong; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; L Priya Kunju; Priti Lal; Mathieu Latour; Tamara Lotan; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Rohit Mehra; Santosh Menon; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Rodolfo Montironi; George J Netto; Jane K Nguyen; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Anil Parwani; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian D Robinson; Mark A Rubin; Rajal B Shah; Jeffrey S So; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Fabio Tavora; Maria S Tretiakova; Lawrence True; Sara E Wobker; Ximing J Yang; Ming Zhou; Debra L Zynger; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 2.954

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.