Improving the reproducibility of the gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer - Suggestion of diagnostic criteria for glandular fusion

Pathology and Oncology Research

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 615-621

  Helpap, B ^a   Kristiansen, G ^b   Beer, M ^c   Kollermann J ^d   Oehler, U ^a   Pogrebniak, A ^a   Fellbaum, C ^a  

^a Department of Pathology   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d HSK Hospital   (Germany)

Author keywords

Glandular fusion; Interobserver reproducibility; Prostate carcinoma

Indexed keywords

EOSIN; HEMATOXYLIN;

ARTICLE; CELL NUCLEUS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGIST; PROSTATE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REPRODUCIBILITY; STROMA CELL;

ADENOCARCINOMA; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASMS, GLANDULAR AND EPITHELIAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84863983137     PISSN: 12194956     EISSN: 15322807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-011-9484-6     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB (2005) Egevad L and the ISUP Grading Committee The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1227-1242
2. Egevad L (2008) Recent trends in Gleason grading of prostate cancer II Prognosis, reproducibility and reporting. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 30:254-260
3. Helpap B (2006) Egevad L The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449:622-627
4. Veloso SG, Lima MF, Salles PG, Berenstein CK, Scalon JD, Bambirra EA (2007) Interobserver agreement of Gleason score and modified Gleason score in needle biopsy and in surgical specimen of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 33:639-646
5. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trykov K (2009) The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology 55:384-391
6. Helpap B, Egevad L (2009) Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer. Are there morphological findings? Urologe 48:170-174
7. Gleason DE (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125-128
8. Gleason DE, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58-64
9. Gleason DF (1977) Histological grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic pathology: the prostate Philadelphia, Lea& Feibiger, 171-198
10. Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostatic cancer. A perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273-279
11. Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J (1967) The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol 97:331-337
12. Mellinger GT (1977) Prognosis of prostatic cancinoma. Recent Results Canc Res 61-72
13. Bostwick DG (1994) Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies: correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 18:796-803
14. Bostwick DG (1994) Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 102/4 (Suppl 1):38-56
15. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Davies CJ (2002) Histological typing of prostate tumours. In: WHO international histological classification of tumours. Second edition. Springer, Berlin, pp 13-16
16. Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook WC et al (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma in Tumours of the prostate. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (eds) WHO classification of tumours of urinary system and male genital organs. IARC, Lyon, pp 180-181
17. Bonkhoff H (2005) Gleason grading. Diagnostische Kriterien und klinische Bedeutung. Pathologe 26:422-432
18. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ et al (1998) Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/ total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 160:2407-2411
19. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB (2005) Scharfstein DO Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 66:356-360
20. Rodriguez-Urrego PA, Cromin AM, Al-Ahmadie HA et al (2011) Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. Hum Patho 42:68-74
21. Brennan RL, Prediger DJ (1981) Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas 41:687-699
22. Randolph JJ (2005) Free-marginal multirater kappa: an alternative to Fleiss' fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Paper presented at the Joensuu University Learning and Instruction Symposium 2005, Joensuu, Finland, October 14-15th, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490661)
23. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Yang X, Epstein JI (1999) The Gleason grading system. An review. J Urol Pathol 10:141-157
24. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32:81-88
25. Melia J, Moseley R, Griffiths DFR et al (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48:644-654
26. Griffiths DFR, Melia J, McWilliam LJ et al (2006) A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 48:655-662
27. Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI et al (2003) Accuracy of Gleason grading by practicing pathologists and impact of education on improving agreement. Human Pathol 34:658-665
28. Wittschieber D, Köllermann J, Schlomm T et al. (2010) Nuclear grading versus Gleason grading in small samples containing prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. Pathol Oncol Res 16:479-484
29. Burchardt M, Engers R, Müller M et al (2008) Interobserver reproducibility by Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134:1071-1078
30. Epstein JI (2010) An update of Gleason grading system. J Urol 183:433-440
31. Delahunt B, Lambs DS, Srigley JR et al (2010) Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 42:339-343
32. Helpap B, Egevad L (2008) Influence of the modified Gleason grading on pT stage and Gleason score of the prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 30:1-7
33. Helpap B, Egevad L (2009) Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol 24:661-666
34. Helpap B, Oehler U (2012) Prostatic carcinoma. The significance of second opinion of histology. Pathologe accepted in press
35. Lau WK, Blute Ml, Bostwick DG et al (2001) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol 166:1692-1
36. Helpap B, Köllermann J (2012) Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol submitted
37. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney D et al (2011) Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch 459:175-182