Diagnosis of "poorly formed glands" Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: An interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1331-1339

  Zhou, Ming ^a   Li, Jianbo ^b   Cheng, Liang ^c   Egevad, Lars ^d   Deng, Fang Ming ^a   Kunju, Lakshmi Priya ^e   Magi Galluzzi, Cristina ^b   Melamed, Jonathan ^a   Mehra, Rohit ^e   Mendrinos, Savvas ^f   Osunkoya, Adeboye O ^g   Paner, Gladell ^h   Shen, Steve S ⁱ   Tsuzuki, Toyonori ^j   Trpkov, Kiril ^k   Tian, Wei ^f   Yang, Ximing ^l   Shah, Rajal B ^f  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^f MIRACA LIFE SCIENCES   (United States)

^g EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

ⁱ Northwestern Medical Center   (United States)

^j NAGOYA DAINI RED CROSS HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^k UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^l HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Gleason grade; Gleason pattern 4; Interobserver reproducibility; Poorly formed glands; Prostate cancer; Prostate needle biopsy

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; HUMAN; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPECIALIZATION; STANDARDS; UROLOGY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CONSENSUS; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPECIALIZATION; UROLOGY;

EID: 84941797079     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000457     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:995-1000.
2. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
3. Mellinger GT. Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1977;60:61-72.
4. Shah RB. Current perspectives on the Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1810-1816.
5. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63: 892-901.
6. Ellis CL, Partin AW, Han M, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with Gleason score 9-10 on core biopsy: correlation with findings at radical prostatectomy and prognosis. J Urol. 2013;190:2068-2073.
7. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:976-983.
8. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128.
9. Gleason DF. Histological grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, ed. Urologic Pathology. Philadelphia: Lea & Feibiger; 1977:171-198.
10. 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.
11. Gottipati S, Warncke J, Vollmer R, et al. Usual and unusual histologic patterns of high Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma of the prostate in needle biopsy tissue. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36: 900-907.
12. Eble J, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyons: IARC; 2004.
13. Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Beer M, et al. Improving the reproducibility of the Gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer-suggestion of diagnostic criteria for glandular fusion. Pathol Oncol Res. 2012;18:615-621.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, et al. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1855-1861.
17. Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D, et al. Gleason inflation 1998-2011. A registry study of 97 168 men. BJU Int. 2014;115:248-255.
18. 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.
19. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology. 2009;55: 384-391.
20. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-760.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, et al. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998; 51:525-529.
24. Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology. 2001;57: 291-295.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Rodriguez-Urrego PA, Cronin AM, Al-Ahmadie HA, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2011;42:68-74.
28. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1387-1405.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and diseasespecific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015; 28:457-464.