Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists

Aims:  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modification of Gleason grading recommended that the highest grade should always be included in the Gleason score (GS) in prostate biopsies. We analysed the impact of this recommendation on reporting of GS 6 versus 7.

[1]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

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

[4]  L. Egevad.  Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. , 2001, Urology.

[5]  James A Hanley,et al.  Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. , 2005, Human pathology.

[7]  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.

[8]  L. Egevad,et al.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[9]  M. Desai,et al.  Changes in prognostic significance and predictive accuracy of Gleason grading system throughout PSA era: impact of grade migration in prostate cancer. , 2007, Urology.

[10]  L. Egevad,et al.  Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web‐based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) , 2008, Histopathology.

[11]  Lars Egevad,et al.  The European Network of Uropathology: a novel mechanism for communication between pathologists. , 2009, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[12]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point , 2010, Pathology.

[13]  Andrew J. Evans,et al.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.

[14]  B. Vainer,et al.  Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? , 2011, Histopathology.

[15]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Handling and reporting of nephrectomy specimens for adult renal tumours: a survey by the European Network of Uropathology , 2011, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[16]  D. Berney,et al.  A practical application of analysing weighted kappa for panels of experts and EQA schemes in pathology , 2011, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[17]  D. Berney,et al.  Handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder in Europe: a web‐based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) , 2011, Histopathology.

[18]  Ladan Fazli,et al.  The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[19]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  Gleason grading: past, present and future , 2012, Histopathology.