Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 10/2008

01.10.2008 | Original Paper

Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays

verfasst von: M. Burchardt, R. Engers, M. Müller, T. Burchardt, R. Willers, J. I. Epstein, R. Ackermann, H. E. Gabbert, A. de la Taille, M. A. Rubin

Erschienen in: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology | Ausgabe 10/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Due to PSA screening and increased awareness, prostate cancer (PCa) is identified earlier resulting in smaller diagnostic samples on prostate needle biopsy. Because Gleason grading plays a critical role in treatment planning, we undertook a controlled study to evaluate interobserver variability among German pathologists to grade small PCas using a series of tissue microarray (TMA) images.

Methods

We have previously demonstrated excellent agreement in Gleason grading using TMAs among expert genitourinary pathologists. In the current study, we identified 331 TMA images (95% PCa and 5% benign) to be evaluated by an expert PCa pathologist and subsequently by practicing pathologists throughout Germany. The images were presented using the Bacus Webslide Browser on a CD-ROM. Evaluations were kept anonymous and participant’s scoring was compared to the expert’s results.

Results

A total of 29 German pathologists analysed an average of 278 images. Mean percentage of TMA images which had been assigned the same Gleason score (GS) as done by the expert was 45.7%. GSs differed by no more than one point (±1) in 83.5% of the TMA samples evaluated. The respondents were able to correctly assign a GS into clinically relevant categories (i.e. <7, 7, >7) in 68.3% of cases. A total of 75.9% respondents under-graded the TMA images. Gleason grading agreement with the expert reviewer correlated with the number of biopsies evaluated by the pathologist per week. Years of diagnostic experience, self-description as a urologic pathologist or affiliation with a university hospital did not correlate with the pathologist’s performance.

Conclusion

The vast majority of participants under-graded the small tumors. Clinically relevant GS categories were correctly assigned in 68% of cases. This raises a potentially significant problem for pathologists, who have not had as much experience evaluating small PCas.
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001a) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88PubMedCrossRef Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001a) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Jones EC, Reuter VE, Sakr W, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2001b) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32(1):74–80PubMedCrossRef Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Jones EC, Reuter VE, Sakr W, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2001b) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32(1):74–80PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Altay B, Kefi A, Nazli O, Killi R, Semerci B, Akar I (2001) Comparison of Gleason scores from sextant prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 67:14–18PubMedCrossRef Altay B, Kefi A, Nazli O, Killi R, Semerci B, Akar I (2001) Comparison of Gleason scores from sextant prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 67:14–18PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bova GS, Parmigiani G, Epstein JI, Wheeler T, Mucci NR, Rubin MA (2001) Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. Hum Pathol 32:417–427PubMedCrossRef Bova GS, Parmigiani G, Epstein JI, Wheeler T, Mucci NR, Rubin MA (2001) Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. Hum Pathol 32:417–427PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De la Taille A, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher E, de Fromont M, Fondimare A, Molinie V, Piron D, Sibony M, Staroz F, Triller M, Peltier E, Thiounn N, Rubin MA (2003) Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol 34(5):444–449CrossRef De la Taille A, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher E, de Fromont M, Fondimare A, Molinie V, Piron D, Sibony M, Staroz F, Triller M, Peltier E, Thiounn N, Rubin MA (2003) Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol 34(5):444–449CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De las Morenas A, Siroky MB, Merriam J, Stilmant MM (1988) Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. Hum Pathol 19(5):595–597CrossRef De las Morenas A, Siroky MB, Merriam J, Stilmant MM (1988) Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. Hum Pathol 19(5):595–597CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S, Kim DH, Dytch HE, Galera-Davidson H, Bibbo M (1991) Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 96(1):70–75PubMed Di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S, Kim DH, Dytch HE, Galera-Davidson H, Bibbo M (1991) Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 96(1):70–75PubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Egevad L (2001) Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 57(2):291–295PubMedCrossRef Egevad L (2001) Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 57(2):291–295PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC (1996) Predication of progression following radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 20:286–292PubMedCrossRef Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC (1996) Predication of progression following radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 20:286–292PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M (2001) The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int 88:716–721PubMedCrossRef Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M (2001) The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int 88:716–721PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593PubMedCrossRef Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279PubMedCrossRef Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gregori A, Vieweg J, Dahm P, Paulson DF (2001) Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 66:66–71PubMedCrossRef Gregori A, Vieweg J, Dahm P, Paulson DF (2001) Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 66:66–71PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 90:305–311PubMedCrossRef King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 90:305–311PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, Barlund M, Schraml P, Leighton S, Torhorst J, Mihatsch MJ, Sauter G, Kallioniemi OP (1998) Tissue microarray for high throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 4:844–847PubMedCrossRef Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, Barlund M, Schraml P, Leighton S, Torhorst J, Mihatsch MJ, Sauter G, Kallioniemi OP (1998) Tissue microarray for high throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 4:844–847PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC (2000) A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer 89:1818–1823PubMedCrossRef Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC (2000) A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer 89:1818–1823PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y (1997) Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 9(4):222–225 McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y (1997) Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 9(4):222–225
Zurück zum Zitat Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, Shiraishi T, Furusato M, Tsuzuki T, Matsuno Y, Sasano H (2003) Accuracy of Gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol 34(7):658–665PubMedCrossRef Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, Shiraishi T, Furusato M, Tsuzuki T, Matsuno Y, Sasano H (2003) Accuracy of Gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol 34(7):658–665PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, Kimball AW Jr, Walsh PC (1987) Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 38(1):92–98 Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, Kimball AW Jr, Walsh PC (1987) Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 38(1):92–98
Zurück zum Zitat Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, Atilla MK, Kandemir B, Yildiz S (1996) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 28(1):73–77PubMedCrossRef Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, Atilla MK, Kandemir B, Yildiz S (1996) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 28(1):73–77PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58(6):843–848PubMedCrossRef Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58(6):843–848PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubin MA, Dunn R, Strawderman M, Pienta KJ (2002) Tissue microarray sampling strategy for prostate cancer biomarker analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 26(3):312–319PubMedCrossRef Rubin MA, Dunn R, Strawderman M, Pienta KJ (2002) Tissue microarray sampling strategy for prostate cancer biomarker analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 26(3):312–319PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D (2002) Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 94:2282–2287PubMedCrossRef Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D (2002) Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 94:2282–2287PubMedCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Svanholm H, Mygind H (1985) Prostatic carcinoma reproducibility of histologic grading. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A] 93(2):67–71 Svanholm H, Mygind H (1985) Prostatic carcinoma reproducibility of histologic grading. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A] 93(2):67–71
Metadaten
Titel
Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays
verfasst von
M. Burchardt
R. Engers
M. Müller
T. Burchardt
R. Willers
J. I. Epstein
R. Ackermann
H. E. Gabbert
A. de la Taille
M. A. Rubin
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2008
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology / Ausgabe 10/2008
Print ISSN: 0171-5216
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1335
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-008-0388-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2008

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 10/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.