Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies.

Advances in whole slide digital imaging in the past decade necessitate validation of these tools in each organ system in advance of clinical adoption. We assessed reproducibility in reporting prostate needle biopsy parameters among urologic pathologists using routine and digital microscopy in a consultation/second opinion-like setting. Four urologic pathologists evaluated a single core level from 50 diagnostically challenging needle biopsy specimens by routine microscopy and whole slide digital imaging. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement were calculated for primary and secondary Gleason grades, Gleason score, tumor quantitation (percentage and size in millimeters), and perineural invasion. Interobserver agreement for routine microscopy was excellent for primary Gleason grade (κ = 0.72) and good for all other parameters (κ ranging from 0.36 to 0.55). Whole slide digital imaging assessment yielded similar agreement for all parameters. Intraobserver agreement for primary Gleason grade and Gleason score was very good to excellent for all pathologists (all κ ≥ 0.65 and ≥ 0.73, respectively). Size of tumor in millimeters consistently displayed higher levels of agreement than percentage of tumor across media and pathologists. Digital assessment of routinely reported cancer parameters on prostatic needle biopsy for a given scanned core level is comparable to that of routine microscopy. These findings imply that histologic interpretation using dynamic whole slide images may accurately simulate routine microscopic evaluation in the consultation setting. Implementation of whole slide digital imaging in these scenarios may significantly reduce the workload of large referral centers in the near future and impact the manner in which pathologists seek second opinion consultation on challenging cases.

[1]  F A Allaert,et al.  Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: an international validation study. , 1996, Human pathology.

[2]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer based on needle biopsy findings: perineural invasion lacks significance on multivariate analysis. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[4]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. , 2006, Human pathology.

[5]  Mikael Lundin,et al.  Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. , 2005, Human pathology.

[6]  A. Morenas,et al.  Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. , 1988, Human pathology.

[7]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study , 2006, BMC clinical pathology.

[8]  R. Sutherland,et al.  Prognostic significance of preoperative factors in localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy , 2003, Cancer.

[9]  Hans Beck,et al.  A European network for virtual microscopy—design, implementation and evaluation of performance , 2009, Virchows Archiv.

[10]  Fred R. Dee,et al.  Implementation of virtual microscope slides in the annual pathobiology of cancer workshop laboratory. , 2003, Human pathology.

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

[12]  J. Srigley,et al.  Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? , 1997, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[13]  John R Davis,et al.  An array microscope for ultrarapid virtual slide processing and telepathology. Design, fabrication, and validation study. , 2004, Human pathology.

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

[15]  Sean SP Costello,et al.  Development and Evaluation of the Virtual Pathology Slide: A New Tool in Telepathology , 2003, Journal of medical Internet research.

[16]  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.

[17]  S. Schild,et al.  Association of percent positive prostate biopsies and perineural invasion with biochemical outcome after external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  S. Gowrishankar,et al.  Gleason scoring of prostatic carcinoma: impact of a web-based tutorial on inter- and intra-observer variability. , 2008, Indian journal of pathology & microbiology.

[19]  Fred R. Dee,et al.  Virtual microscopy for learning and assessment in pathology , 2004, The Journal of pathology.

[20]  G P Siegal,et al.  A prospective trial of telepathology for intraoperative consultation (frozen sections). , 2000, Human pathology.

[21]  Rebecca S. Crowley,et al.  The Virtual Slide Set - a Curriculum Development System for Digital Microscopy , 2003, AMIA.

[22]  Hartwig Huland,et al.  Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[23]  A J Robertson,et al.  Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. , 1997, Human pathology.

[24]  Keith J Kaplan,et al.  Use of Robotic Telepathology for Frozen-Section Diagnosis: A Retrospective Trial of a Telepathology System for Intraoperative Consultation , 2002, Modern Pathology.

[25]  H Svanholm,et al.  Prostatic carcinoma reproducibility of histologic grading. , 1985, Acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica. Section A, Pathology.

[26]  M. Gallee,et al.  Problems in grading of prostatic carcinoma: interobserver reproducibility of five different grading systems , 1986, World Journal of Urology.

[27]  Ş. Özdamar,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas , 2006, International Urology and Nephrology.

[28]  R P Singson,et al.  Virtual microscopy and the Internet as telepathology consultation tools. A study of gastrointestinal biopsy specimens. , 1999, American journal of clinical pathology.

[29]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Perineural invasion as a predictor of biochemical outcome following radical prostatectomy for select men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[30]  Jiang Gu,et al.  Virtual microscopy and virtual slides in teaching, diagnosis, and research , 2005 .

[31]  F J Leong,et al.  Automated complete slide digitization: a medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[32]  Setsuya Fujita,et al.  Use of virtual slide system for quick frozen intra-operative telepathology diagnosis in Kyoto, Japan , 2008, Diagnostic Pathology.

[33]  B. Molnár,et al.  Digital slide and virtual microscopy based routine and telepathology evaluation of routine gastrointestinal biopsy specimens , 2003 .

[34]  M Bibbo,et al.  Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. , 1991, American journal of clinical pathology.