Interobserver reproducibility of percent gleason pattern 4 in prostatic adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsies

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 40, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 1686-1692

  Sadimin, Evita T ^a   Khani, Francesca ^a   Diolombi, Mairo ^a   Meliti, Abdelrazak ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason pattern 4; Gleason score 7; Interobserver reproducibility; Prostatic adenocarcinoma

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84980350473     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000714     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823-827.
2. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4+3 and 3+4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol. 2002;167:2440-2442.
3. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes A-M, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;98:2560-2565.
4. Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1439-1445.
5. Alenda O, Ploussard G, Mouracade P, et al. Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a single-center cohort of 1,248 patients with Gleason 7 tumors. World J Urol. 2011;29:671-676.
6. Koontz BF, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, et al. Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:200-203.
7. 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.
8. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244-252.
9. Moch H, Humphrey P, Ulbright T, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.
10. Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69:592-598.
11. Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al. Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1096-1101.
12. Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, et al. The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18:270-275.
13. Kir G, Seneldir H, Gumus E. Outcomes of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer with minimal amounts (<6%) vs Z6% of Gleason pattern 4 tissue in needle biopsy specimens. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016;20:48-51.
14. Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI. Changes in prostate cancer grading: including a new patient-centric grading system. Prostate. 2016;76:427-433.
15. Meliti A, Khani F, Diolombi M, et al. Correlation of Gleason score 7 in prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy between general and urological pathologists: influence of percent pattern 4 and other histological factors. J Mod Pathol. 2016;29:249A.
16. Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, et al. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int. 2005;95:1146-1152.
17. Oyama T, Allsbrook WC, 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.
18. Burchardt M, Engers R, Mu? ller M, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134:1071-1078.
19. Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, et al. The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2014;64:405-411.
20. Chen SD, Fava JL, Amin A. Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution. Virchows Arch. 2016;468:213-218.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74-80.
24. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-88.
25. 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.
26. Shah RB, Li J, Cheng L, et al. Diagnosis of Gleason pattern 5 prostate adenocarcinoma on core needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1242-1249.
27. 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.
28. Coard KC, Freeman VL. Gleason grading of prostate cancer: level of concordance between pathologists at the University Hospital of the West Indies. Am. J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:373-376.
29. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, et al. Reliability of small amounts of cancer in prostate biopsies to reveal pathologic grade. Urology. 2006;67:1229-1234.
30. Bova GS, Parmigiani G, Epstein JI, et al. Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:417-427.
31. De la Taille A, Viellefond A, Berger N, et al. Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol. 2003;34: 444-449.