The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-018-03037-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Matthias Holdhoff, Xiaobu Ye, Anna F. Piotrowski and Peter C. Burger have contributed equally to this work.
Clinical factors and neuro-imaging in patients with glioblastoma who appear to progress following standard chemoradiation are unable to reliably distinguish tumor progression from pseudo-progression. As a result, surgery is commonly recommended to establish a final diagnosis. However, studies evaluating the pathologists’ agreement on pathologic diagnoses in this setting have not been previously evaluated.
A hypothetical clinical history coupled with images of histological sections from 13 patients with glioblastoma who underwent diagnostic surgery for suspected early recurrence were sent to 101 pathologists from 50 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. Pathologists were asked to provide a final diagnosis (active tumor, treatment effect, or unable to classify) and to report on percent active tumor, treatment effect, and degree of cellularity and degree of mitotic activity.
Forty-eight pathologists (48%) from 30 centers responded. In three cases > 75% of pathologists diagnosed active tumor. In two cases > 75% diagnosed treatment effect. However, in the remaining eight cases the disparity in diagnoses was striking (maximum agreement on final diagnosis ranged from 36 to 68%). Overall, only marginal agreement was observed in the overall assessment of disease status [kappa score 0.228 (95% CI 0.22–0.24)].
Confidence in any clinical diagnostic assay requires that very similar results are obtained from identical specimens evaluated by sophisticated clinicians and institutions. The findings of this study illustrate that the diagnostic agreement between different cases of repeat resection for suspected recurrent glioblastoma can be variable. This raises concerns as pathological diagnoses are critical in directing standard and experimental care in this setting.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 KB)11060_2018_3037_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ (2008) Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 9(5):453–461 CrossRef
Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A et al (2009) Temozolomide concomitant and adjuvant to radiotherapy in elderly patients with glioblastoma: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status. Cancer 115(15):3512–3518 CrossRef
de Wit MC, de Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, Sillevis Smitt PA, van den Bent MJ (2004) Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology 63(3):535–537 CrossRef
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28(11):1963–1972 CrossRef
Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A et al (2008) MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 26(13):2192–2197 CrossRef
Ambady P, Bettegowda C, Holdhoff M (2013) Emerging methods for disease monitoring in malignant gliomas. CNS Oncol 2(6):511–522 CrossRef
Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, Van Horn A, Sloan AE (2007) Early necrosis following concurrent temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 82(1):81–83 CrossRef
Woodworth GF, Garzon-Muvdi T, Ye X, Blakeley JO, Weingart JD, Burger PC (2013) Histopathological correlates with survival in reoperated glioblastomas. J Neurooncol 113(3):485–493 CrossRef
Galante JR, Rodriguez F, Grossman SA, Strowd RE (2017) Late post-treatment radiographic changes 3 years following chemoradiation for glioma: the importance of histopathology. CNS Oncol 6:195–201 CrossRef
Forsyth PA, Kelly FRCPC PJ, et al (1995) Radiation necrosis or glioma recurrence: is computer-assisted stereotactic biopsy useful? J Neurosurg 82(3):436–444 CrossRef
Kim J, Kim YB, Han JH et al (2012) Pathologic diagnosis of recurrent glioblastoma: morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis of 20 paired cases. Am J Surg Pathol 36(4):620–628 CrossRef
Tihan T, Barletta J, Parney I, Lamborn K, Sneed PK, Chang S (2006) Prognostic value of detecting recurrent glioblastoma multiforme in surgical specimens from patients after radiotherapy: should pathology evaluation alter treatment decisions? Hum Pathol 37(3):272–282 CrossRef
Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378–382 CrossRef
Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688 CrossRef
Rosner N (1990) Fundamentals of biostatistics. PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston
Versi E (1992) “Gold standard” is an appropriate term. BMJ 305(6846):187 CrossRef
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al (2007) American society of clinical Oncology/College of american pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(1):118–145 CrossRef
Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32(1):74–80 CrossRef
- The consistency of neuropathological diagnoses in patients undergoing surgery for suspected recurrence of glioblastoma
Anna F. Piotrowski
Roy E. Strowd
Norman J. Barker
Fausto J. Rodriguez
Stuart A. Grossman
Peter C. Burger
- Springer US
Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie
Mail Icon II