Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: Findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial

Urology

Volumn 77, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1155-1160

  Netto, George J ^a   Eisenberger, Mario ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; NOMOGRAM; PATHOLOGIST; PELVIS LYMPH NODE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE;

HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 79955571596     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.031     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol. 2002;167:528-534. (Pubitemid 34074521)
2. Petrylak DP, Tangen CM, Hussain MH, et al. Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1513-1520. (Pubitemid 39315318)
3. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1499-1507. (Pubitemid 29220858)
4. Kattan MW, Eastham J. Algorithms for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after treatment of localized prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2003;1:221-226. (Pubitemid 37021458)
5. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists. Adv Anat Pathol. 2006;13:57-59. (Pubitemid 44357147)
7. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;216:34-63.
8. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, et al. Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1305-1309. (Pubitemid 47247492)
9. Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2002;95:1215-1219. (Pubitemid 35013054)
10. 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. (Pubitemid 32150631)
11. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-88. (Pubitemid 32150632)
12. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2004;445:17-21. (Pubitemid 39044264)
13. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2004;171:664-667. (Pubitemid 38090452)
14. Oyama T, Allsbrook WC Jr, Kurokawa K, et al. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1004-1010. (Pubitemid 41060637)
15. Ekici S, Ayhan A, Erkan I, et al. The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37:387-391. (Pubitemid 37463855)
16. Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1503-1512.
17. van der Kwast TH, Collette L, van Poppel H, et al. Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch. 2006;449:428-434. (Pubitemid 44451317)
18. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, et al. Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2010;183:952-957.
19. Burchardt M, Engers R, Muller M, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134:1071-1078.