Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists

Histopathology

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 247-256

  Egevad, Lars ^a   Ahmad, Amar S ^b   Algaba, Ferran ^c   Berney, Daniel M ^d   Boccon Gibod, Liliane ^e   Compérat, Eva ^f   Evans, Andrew J ^g   Griffiths, David ^h   Grobholz, Rainer ⁱ   Kristiansen, Glen ^j   Langner, Cord ^k   Lopez Beltran, Antonio ^l   Montironi, Rodolfo ^m   Moss, Sue ^b   Oliveira, Pedro ⁿ   Vainer, Ben ^o   Varma, Murali ^h   Camparo, Philippe ^p  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c FUNDACIÓ PUIGVERT   (Spain)

^d ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e ARMAND TROUSSEAU HOSPITAL   (France)

^f PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ CANTONAL HOSPITAL AARAU   (Switzerland)

^j UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BONN   (Germany)

^k MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^l Universidad de Cordoba   (Spain)

^m UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

ⁿ HOSPITAL DA LUZ   (Portugal)

^o Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

^p FOCH HOSPITAL   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Biopsy; Gleason grading; Human; Male; Pathology; Prostatic neoplasms; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA; CROATIA; DENMARK; FINLAND; FRANCE; GERMANY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HUNGARY; IRELAND; ITALY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NETHERLANDS; NORWAY; PATHOLOGIST; PORTUGAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY; ROMANIA; SLOVENIA; SPAIN; STANDARDIZATION; SWEDEN; SWITZERLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; CONSENSUS; EUROPE; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84871133517     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12008     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006; 449; 622-627.
2. Mitchell RE, Shah JB, Desai M et al. Changes in prognostic significance and predictive accuracy of Gleason grading system throughout PSA era: impact of grade migration in prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 70; 706-710.
3. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60; 75-86.
4. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29; 1228-1242.
5. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42; 339-343.
6. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch. 2011; 459; 175-182.
7. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM et al. The European Network of Uropathology: a novel mechanism for communication between pathologists. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 2009; 31; 90-95.
8. Wright KC, Harnden P, Moss S, Berney DM, Melia J. A practical application of analysing weighted kappa for panels of experts and EQA schemes in pathology. J. Clin. Pathol. 2011; 64; 257-260.
9. Egevad L, Engström K, Mattson S, Wester K, Busch C. Heterogeneity of DNA ploidy in prostate cancer. J. Urol. Pathol. 1999; 10; 23-37.
10. Vainer B, Toft BG, Olsen KE, Jacobsen GK, Marcussen N. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding?Histopathology 2011; 58; 211-216.
11. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97; 1248-1253.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 2001; 57; 291-295.
15. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1997; 21; 566-576.
16. McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J. Urol. 2011; 186; 465-469.
17. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 2005; 36; 5-9.
18. Lopez-Beltran A, Algaba F, Berney DM et al. Handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP). Histopathology 2011; 58; 579-585.
19. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM et al. Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP). Histopathology 2008; 53; 333-339.
20. Algaba F, Delahunt B, Berney DM et al. Handling and reporting of nephrectomy specimens for adult renal tumours: a survey by the European Network of Uropathology. J. Clin. Pathol. 2012; 65; 106-113.