Interobserver agreement of Gleason score and modified Gleason score in needle biopsy and in surgical specimen of prostate cancer

International Braz J Urol

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 639-646

  Veloso, Sergio G ^a,b   Lima, Mario F ^a   Salles, Paulo G ^a   Berenstein, Cynthia K ^a   Scalon, Joao D ^a   Bambirra, Eduardo A ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

^b NONE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Needle; Pathology; Prostatic neoplasms; Surgery

Indexed keywords

EID: 36549011799     PISSN: 16775538     EISSN: 16776119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382007000500005     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT: Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1994; 43: 60-6; discussion 66-7.
2. Billis A, Pompeo AC: Adenocarcinoma da próstata. Int Braz J Urol. 2003; 29 (suppl 1): 27-34.
3. Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G, Algaba F: Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 1146-52.
4. Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Luque RJ, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R: Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2006; 448: 111-8.
5. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI: Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2005; 36: 5-9.
6. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI: The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify qe Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 563-9.
7. Rioux-Leclercq NC, Chan DY, Epstein JI: Prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with organ-confined Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma. Urology. 2002; 60: 666-9.
8. Helpap B, Egevad L: The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006; 449: 622-7.
9. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-42.
10. De la Taille A, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher E, De Fromont M, Fondimare A, et al.: Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol. 2003; 34: 444-9.
11. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L: Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2004; 445: 17-21.
12. Hollenbeck BK, Bassily N, Wei JT, Montie JE, Hayasaka S, Taylor JM, et al.: Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J Urol. 2000; 164: 1583-6.
13. Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI: Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score? Hum Pathol. 2003; 34: 911-4.
14. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L: Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2002; 168: 2006-10.
15. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI: Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001; 32: 81-8. Erratum in: Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 1417.
16. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, et al.: Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001; 32: 74-80.
17. Griffiths DF, Melia J, McWilliam LJ, Ball RY, Grigor K, Harriden P, et al.: A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology. 2006; 48: 655-62.