Prostatic pathology reporting in the UK: Development of a national external quality assurance scheme

Histopathology

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 147-157

  Harnden, P ^a   Coleman, D ^b   Moss, S ^b   Kodikara, S ^b   Patnick, J ^c   Melia, J ^b  

^a ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Health care; Needle; Observer variation; Prostatic neoplasms diagnosis; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; KAPPA STATISTICS; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NEEDLE; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGIST; PERINEURIUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE DISEASE; PROSTATE TUMOR; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 37549018524     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02922.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006 59 138 145.
2. Sloane JP, Ellman R, Anderson TJ et al. Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the U.K. National External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme. U. K. National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Eur. J. Cancer 1994 30A 1414 1419.
3. Iczkowski KA. Current prostate biopsy interpretation: criteria for cancer, atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and use of immunostains. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006 130 835 843.
4. Postma R, de Vries SH, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. Incidence and follow-up of patients with focal prostate carcinoma in 2 screening rounds after an interval of 4 years. Cancer 2005 103 708 716.
5. Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum. Pathol. 1997 28 646 649.
6. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 2006 48 644 654.
7. Che M, Sakr W, Grignon D. Pathologic features the urologist should expect on a prostate biopsy. Urol. Oncol. 2003 21 153 161.
8. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol. Meas. 1960 20 37 46.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 33 159 174.
10. Parham DM, Coleman D, Kodikara S et al. The NHS breast screening programme (pathology) EQA: experience in recent years relating to issues involved in individual performance appraisal. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006 59 130 137.
11. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J. Urol. 2006 175 820 834.
12. Griffiths DF, Melia J, McWilliam LJ et al. A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 2006 48 655 662.
13. Allsbrook WC Jr., Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 2001 32 74 80.
14. 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 88.
15. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: How are the surgical members of the society of urologic oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2004 28 946 952.
16. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Clements H et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer 2007 109 13 24.
17. Parsons JK, Partin AW. Clinical interpretation of prostate biopsy reports. Urology 2006 67 452 457.
18. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Investigating the clinical utility of the percent of positive prostate biopsies in predicting PSA outcome following local therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2000 3 259 264.
19. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 98 715 717.
20. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr., Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2003 27 432 440.
21. Naya Y, Babaian RJ. The predictors of pelvic lymph node metastasis at radical retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2003 170 2306 2310.
22. Nelson CP, Rubin MA, Strawderman M, Montie JE, Sanda MG. Preoperative parameters for predicting early prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002 59 740 745.