The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
YN analysed and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. NT conceived of the study and revised this manuscript. KS participated in this study as a urological pathologist and helped to carry out this study. NK participated in this study as a urological pathologist and provided valuable help on the study. MM and SA provided valuable help on the experiments. KF participated in its design and gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Urologists use biopsy Gleason scores for patient counseling, prognosis prediction, and decision making. The accuracy of Gleason grading is very important. However, the variability of Gleason grading between general pathologists cannot be overlooked. Here we evaluate the discrepancy in the Gleason grading between 2 urologic pathologists and general pathologists as well as improvement in the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists as a result of review by urologic pathologists.
The subjects enrolled in the study were 755 patients who underwent prostate needle biopsy at affiliate hospitals of Nara Medical University over a period of 2 years. The biopsy samples were diagnosed by general pathologists. All biopsy samples were sent to Nara Medical University where they were diagnosed by 2 urologic pathologists. The results were then returned to the general pathologists. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the general pathologists with that of the urologic pathologists for the parameters of no malignancy, atypical small acinar proliferation, high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and Gleason score (6, 3 + 4, 4 + 3 and 8–10). We then evaluated the concordance rate between the general and urologic pathologists for each of four consecutive 6-month periods.
The overall concordance rate of urologic pathologists and general pathologists in the first, second, third and last 6-month periods was 71.8 % (140/198), 79.8 % (168/225), 89.7 % (166/185) and 89.9 % (133/148), respectively. The concordance rate of the Gleason score between urologic pathologists and general pathologists in the first, second, third and last 6-month periods was 47.5 %(38/80), 62.6 %(57/91),76.9 %(50/65) and 78.7 %(48/61), respectively, and the kappa value was 0.55, 0.68, 0.81 and 0.84, respectively. The concordance rate improved significantly over the course of each period (P = 0.04).
The concordance rate of the Gleason grading between the general pathologists and the urologic pathologists was 47.5 %. However, improvement of the concordance rate as a result of review by the urological pathologist could be seen.
Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125. PubMed
Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58. PubMed
Gleason DF. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, editor. Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1977. p. 171.
Japanese Urological Association and the Japanese Society of Pathology, editor. General rule for clinical and pathological studies on prostate cancer. 3rd ed. Tokyo: Kanahara-Shuppan; 2001.
Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, Kimball AW Jr, Walsh PC. 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. 1987;38:92.
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843.
Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74.
McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y. Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997;9:222.
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 Patol. 2004;122:373. CrossRef
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.
Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, Freitas LL, Costa LB, Bonfitto JF, et al. The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46:935.
Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, Wu S, Lee H, Olumi AF, 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.
Ito K, Ohi M, Yamamoto T, Miyamoto S, Kurokawa K, Fukabori Y, et al.The diagnostic accuracy of the age-adjusted and prostate volume-adjusted biopsy method in males with proatate specific antigen levels of 4.1-10.0 ng/mL. Cancer. 2002;95:2112.
Tanaka N1, Fujimoto K, Yoshikawa M, Tanaka M, Hirao Y, Kondo H, et al. Prostatic volume and volume-adjusted prostate-specific antigen as predictive parameters for T1c prostatecancer. Hinyokika kiyo. 2007;53:459.
Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:517.
Tanaka N, Fujimoto K, Hirayama A, Torimoto K, Okajima E, Tanaka M, et al. Risk-stratified survival rates and predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in a Nara, Japan, cohort study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16:553.
Potters L, Purrazzella R, Brustein S, Fearn P, Huang D, Leibel SA, et al. The prognostic significance of Gleason grade in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Boil Phys. 2003;56:749.
Sabolch A1, Feng FY, Daignault-Newton S, Halverson S, Blas K, Phelps L, et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Boil Phys. 2011;81:e351.
Burchardt M, Engers R, Müller M, Burchardt T, Willers R, Epstein JI, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. J cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134:1071.
King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:386.
Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, Shiraishi T, Furusato M, Tsuzuki T, et al. Accuracy of Gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol. 2003;34:658.
Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology. 2001;57:291.
Barqawi AB, Turcanu R, Gamito EJ, Lucia SM, O'Donnell CI, Crawford ED, et al. The value of second-opinion pathology diagnosis on prostate biopsies from patients reffered for management of prostate cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2011;4:468–75.
- Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie
Meistgelesene Bücher in der Urologie
Mail Icon II