The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: Areas of agreement and misconception among 266 european pathologists

Histopathology

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 405-411

  Berney, Daniel M ^a   Algaba, Ferran ^b   Camparo, Philippe ^c   Compérat, Eva ^d   Griffiths, David ^e   Kristiansen, Glen ^f   Lopez Beltran, Antonio ^g   Montironi, Rodolfo ^h   Varma, Murali ^e   Egevad, Lars ⁱ  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b FUNDACIÓ PUIGVERT   (Spain)

^c Centre de Pathologie Amiens Picardie   (France)

^d PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^g Universidad de Cordoba   (Spain)

^h UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

ⁱ KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Gleason; Grading; ISUP; Prostate cancer; Survey

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER;

GLEASON; GRADING; ISUP; PROSTATE CANCER; SURVEY;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; EUROPE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 84892446337     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12284     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 1966; 50; 4.
2. Gleason DF, Melliger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 1974; 11; 7.
3. Cuzick J, Fisher G, Kattan MW et al. Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2006; 95; 1186-1194.
4. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60; 75-86.
5. 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.
6. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000; 24; 477-478.
7. Berney DM. Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities. Histopathology 2007; 50; 683-690.
8. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97; 1248-1253.
9. Berney DM, Fisher G, Kattan MW et al. Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and grading. BJU Int. 2007; 100; 1240-1244.
10. Gorin MA, Eldefrawy A, Ekwenna O, Soloway MS. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011; 15; 177-181.
11. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB et al. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2012; 36; 838-843.
12. 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.
13. Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N et al. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 2008; 180; 904-909; discussion 909-910.
14. 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 2012; 42; 339-343.
15. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 2013; 62; 247-256.
16. Montironi R, Egevad L, Bjartell A, Berney DM. Role of histopathology and molecular markers in the active surveillance of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011; 50(Suppl. 1); 56-60.
17. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2009; 181; 1635-1641; discussion 1641.
18. 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.
19. Harnden P, Coleman D, Moss S, Kodikara S, Griffin NR, Melia J. Evaluation of the use of digital images for a national prostate core external quality assurance scheme. Histopathology 2011; 59; 703-709.
20. Kristiansen G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology 2012; 60; 125-141.
21. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2008; 32; 1532-1539.
22. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2011; 136; 98-107.
23. Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J. Urol. 2010; 183; 433-440.
24. 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.
25. Varma M, Berney DM, Algaba F et al. Prostate needle biopsy processing: a survey of laboratory practice across Europe. J. Clin. Pathol. 2013; 66; 120-123.
26. 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.
27. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod. Pathol. 2005; 18; 228-234.
28. Jardel P, Debiais C, Godet J, Irani J, Fromont G. Ductal carcinoma of the prostate shows a different immunophenotype from high grade acinar cancer. Histopathology 2013; 63; 57-63.
29. Humphrey PA. Histological variants of prostatic carcinoma and their significance. Histopathology 2012; 60; 59-74.
30. Amato RJ, Logothetis CJ, Hallinan R, Ro JY, Sella A, Dexeus FH. Chemotherapy for small cell carcinoma of prostatic origin. J. Urol. 1992; 147; 935-937.
31. Petraki CD, Sfikas CP. Histopathological changes induced by therapies in the benign prostate and prostate adenocarcinoma. Histol. Histopathol. 2007; 22; 107-118.
32. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Evans AJ. Therapy-associated effects in the prostate gland. Histopathology 2012; 60; 153-165.
33. Tetu B. Morphological changes induced by androgen blockade in normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008; 22; 271-283.