Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES To determine the agreement between the local pathologist findings and central pathologist findings using data from the TAX 3501 trial. TAX 3501 was a randomized, multinational trial comparing the outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel after radical prostatectomy (RP). Patient eligibility was determined by a minimal 5-year progression-free survival estimate of 60% using Kattan's nomogram. METHODS The pathologic findings were reassessed in 257 consecutive RP specimens by 2 central pathologists and compared with the local pathologist data. RESULTS For the Gleason score, agreement was found in 181 (70%) of 257 cases, upgrading in 57 (75%), and downgrading in 25% of the RP specimens The most frequent upgrade was from Gleason score 7 to 8 or 9 and downgrading from Gleason score 8 to 7. Of the upgrades and downgrades, 37% and 21% were of 2 Gleason score points, respectively. For the tumor extent, agreement was found in 179 (70%) of 256 specimens, with upstaging in 70 (91%) and downstaging in 9%. The most frequent upstage was from focal to extensive extraprostatic extension (45%). For seminal vesicle invasion, agreement was found for 238 (93%) of 256 RP specimens Almost equal rates of underdiagnosing and overdiagnosing seminal vesicle invasion was observed. For margin status, agreement was present for 229 (89%) of 256 cases. The central pathologist review led to reclassification as a positive margin in 17 cases and a negative margin in 10. For lymph node status, 2 (1%) of 210 RP specimens had positive nodes identified only by the central pathologist. Agreement was observed in 154 negative and 54 positive cases. CONCLUSIONS Significant interobserver variations were found between the central and local pathologists. From the central pathologist review, the progression-free survival estimates were altered in 31 patients (13%), including 22 who were reassigned a greater risk estimate, rendering them study eligible. Thus, interobserver variability affected prognostication and trial accrual.

[1]  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.

[2]  L. Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[3]  M. Kattan,et al.  Algorithms for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2003, Clinical prostate cancer.

[4]  Taizo Shiraishi,et al.  Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[5]  E. Bergstralh,et al.  Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy , 2002, Cancer.

[6]  Takaaki Sano,et al.  A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. , 2005, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  M. Rubin,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays , 2008, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[8]  M. Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Mahul B Amin,et al.  Update on the Gleason Grading System for Prostate Cancer: Results of an International Consensus Conference of Urologic Pathologists , 2006, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[10]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. , 2001, Human pathology.

[11]  Sten Nilsson,et al.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[12]  Jonathan I. Epstein,et al.  Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma , 2007, Virchows Archiv.

[13]  L. Collette,et al.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911) , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[14]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

[16]  C. Tangen,et al.  Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[18]  Madeleine Moussa,et al.  Interobserver Variability Between Expert Urologic Pathologists for Extraprostatic Extension and Surgical Margin Status in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2008, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  M. Bakkaloğlu,et al.  The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens , 2003, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.