Improvement of diagnostic agreement among pathologists in resolving an "atypical glands suspicious for cancer" diagnosis in prostate biopsies using a novel "Disease-Focused Diagnostic Review" quality improvement process.

One of the major goals of an anatomic pathology laboratory quality program is to minimize unwarranted diagnostic variability and equivocal reporting. This study evaluated the utility of Miraca Life Sciences' "Disease-Focused Diagnostic Review" (DFDR) quality program in improving interobserver diagnostic reproducibility associated with classification of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" (ATYP) in prostate biopsies. Seventy-one selected prostate biopsies with a focus of ATYP were reviewed by 8 pathologists. Participants were blinded to the original diagnosis and were first asked to classify the ATYP as benign, atypical, or limited adenocarcinoma. DFDR comprised a "theoretical consensus" (in which pathologists first reached consensus on the morphological features they considered relevant for the diagnosis of limited prostatic adenocarcinoma), a didactic review including relevant literature, and "practical consensus" (pathologists performed joint microscopic sessions, reconciling each other's observations and positions evaluating a separate unique slide set). Participants were finally asked to reclassify the original 71 ATYP cases based on knowledge gleaned from DFDR. Pre- and post-DFDR interobserver reproducibility of overall diagnostic agreement was assessed. Interobserver reproducibility measured by Fleiss κ values of pre- and post-DFDR was 0.36 and 0.59, respectively (P=.006). Post-DFDR, there were significant improvement for "100% concordance" (P=.011) and reduction for "no consensus" (P=.0004) categories. Despite a lower pre-DFDR reproducibility for non-uropathology fellowship-trained (n=3, κ=0.38) versus uropathology fellowship-trained (n=5, κ=0.43) pathologists, both groups achieved similarly high post-DFDR κ levels (κ=0.58 and 0.56, respectively). DFDR represents an effective tool to formally achieve diagnostic consensus and reduce variability associated with critical diagnoses in an anatomic pathology practice.

[1]  A. Abdollahi,et al.  Inter-observer reproducibility before and after web-based education in the Gleason grading of the prostate adenocarcinoma among the Iranian pathologists. , 2014, Acta medica Iranica.

[2]  M. Rugge,et al.  Gastric mucosal atrophy: interobserver consistency using new criteria for classification and grading , 2002, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[3]  Athanase Billis,et al.  The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[4]  A. Chinnaiyan,et al.  Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangements in prostate core biopsies, including diagnostically challenging cases: ERG staining in prostate core biopsies. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  D. Wilkinson,et al.  Equivocal or Ambiguous Terminologies in Pathology: Focus of Continuous Quality Improvement? , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[6]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Variability in Diagnostic Opinion Among Pathologists for Single Small Atypical Foci in Prostate Biopsies , 2010, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[7]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Minimal carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens: diagnostic features and radical prostatectomy follow-up. , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[8]  J. Hicks,et al.  Cytoplasmic PTEN Protein Loss Distinguishes Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate from High Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 2012, Modern Pathology.

[9]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  R. Shah,et al.  Utility of PTEN and ERG Immunostaining for Distinguishing High-grade PIN From Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate on Needle Biopsy , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[12]  J. Epstein,et al.  Diagnostic criteria of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. , 1995, Human pathology.

[13]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue , 2007, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[14]  Lars Egevad,et al.  The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists , 2014, Histopathology.

[15]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[16]  W. Frable,et al.  Surgical pathology--second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[17]  R. Shah,et al.  ETS Gene Aberrations in Atypical Cribriform Lesions of the Prostate: Implications for the Distinction Between Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate and Cribriform High-grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 2010, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  J W Arends,et al.  Efforts to improve interobserver agreement in histopathological grading. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  R. Shah,et al.  The diagnostic use of ERG in resolving an "atypical glands suspicious for cancer" diagnosis in prostate biopsies beyond that provided by basal cell and α-methylacyl-CoA-racemase markers. , 2013, Human pathology.

[20]  R. Shah Clinical Applications of Novel ERG Immunohistochemistry in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Management , 2013, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[21]  Murali Varma,et al.  Morphologic criteria for the diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsy specimens. A study of 250 consecutive cases in a routine surgical pathology practice. , 2002, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.