Literature DB >> 33547336

Interchangeability of light and virtual microscopy for histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer.

Renata Zelic1, Francesca Giunchi2, Luca Lianas3, Cecilia Mascia3, Gianluigi Zanetti3, Ove Andrén4, Jonna Fridfeldt4, Jessica Carlsson4, Sabina Davidsson4, Luca Molinaro5, Per Henrik Vincent6,7, Lorenzo Richiardi8, Olof Akre6,7, Michelangelo Fiorentino9, Andreas Pettersson10.   

Abstract

Virtual microscopy (VM) holds promise to reduce subjectivity as well as intra- and inter-observer variability for the histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. We evaluated (i) the repeatability (intra-observer agreement) and reproducibility (inter-observer agreement) of the 2014 Gleason grading system and other selected features using standard light microscopy (LM) and an internally developed VM system, and (ii) the interchangeability of LM and VM. Two uro-pathologists reviewed 413 cores from 60 Swedish men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer 1998-2014. Reviewer 1 performed two reviews using both LM and VM. Reviewer 2 performed one review using both methods. The intra- and inter-observer agreement within and between LM and VM were assessed using Cohen's kappa and Bland and Altman's limits of agreement. We found good repeatability and reproducibility for both LM and VM, as well as interchangeability between LM and VM, for primary and secondary Gleason pattern, Gleason Grade Groups, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern and comedonecrosis but not for the percentage of Gleason pattern 4. Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of VM compared to LM. The repeatability and reproducibility of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was poor regardless of method used warranting further investigation and improvement before it is used in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33547336      PMCID: PMC7864946          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82911-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  31 in total

1.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist.

Authors:  W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists.

Authors:  W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; M B Amin; D G Bostwick; P A Humphrey; E C Jones; V E Reuter; W Sakr; I A Sesterhenn; P Troncoso; T M Wheeler; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.466

3.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Axel Glaessgen; Hans Hamberg; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Birgitta Sundelin; Bo Nilsson; Lars Egevad
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma among general pathologists.

Authors:  R V Singh; S R Agashe; A V Gosavi; K R Sulhyan
Journal:  Indian J Cancer       Date:  2011 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.224

5.  A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility.

Authors:  D F R Griffiths; J Melia; L J McWilliam; R Y Ball; K Grigor; P Harnden; M Jarmulowicz; R Montironi; R Moseley; M Waller; S Moss; M C Parkinson
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.087

6.  Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies.

Authors:  Paula A Rodriguez-Urrego; Angel M Cronin; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Anuradha Gopalan; Satish K Tickoo; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 3.466

7.  Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tayyar A Ozkan; Ahmet T Eruyar; Oguz O Cebeci; Omur Memik; Levent Ozcan; Ibrahim Kuskonmaz
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 1.612

8.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

Review 9.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Gleason’s Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Inter-Observer Variation Among Seven Pathologists at a Tertiary Care Center in Oman

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
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.

Authors:  Matthew G Hanna; Orly Ardon; Victor E Reuter; Sahussapont Joseph Sirintrapun; Christine England; David S Klimstra; Meera R Hameed
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.

Authors:  Gianluigi Zanetti; Renata Zelic; Francesca Giunchi; Jonna Fridfeldt; Jessica Carlsson; Sabina Davidsson; Luca Lianas; Cecilia Mascia; Daniela Zugna; Luca Molinaro; Per Henrik Vincent; Ove Andrén; Lorenzo Richiardi; Olof Akre; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Andreas Pettersson
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 3.  Cultivating Clinical Clarity through Computer Vision: A Current Perspective on Whole Slide Imaging and Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  Ankush U Patel; Nada Shaker; Sambit Mohanty; Shivani Sharma; Shivam Gangal; Catarina Eloy; Anil V Parwani
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-22
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.