Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability.

OBJECTIVES To examine the correlation of biopsy Gleason scores with radical prostatectomy specimens from a laboratory that uses protocols designed to minimize observer variability. This protocol mandates consensus case review of all nonbenign cases. METHODS Between August 24, 1993 and June 26, 1997, 106 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland had their prostate cancer diagnosed and graded at one laboratory (DIANON Systems). We analyzed the Gleason scores from the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS Exact correlation existed between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores for 72 (68%) cases; 103 (97%) correlated within 1 grade, all cases correlated within 2 grades; 26 (25%) biopsies were undergraded and 8 (8%) were overgraded. Positive predictive values for biopsy Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7 were 66%, 67%, and 71%, respectively. Grouped Gleason scores (well differentiated [2 to 4], moderately differentiated [5, 6], moderately to poorly differentiated [7], and poorly differentiated [8 to 10]) correlated exactly for 74 (70%) cases and within 1 group for all cases. Patient age, digital rectal examination results, total number of positive cores, and maximum percentage of tumor on biopsy did not affect correlation, but prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels did affect correlation (exact correlation 96% when the PSA level was less than 5 ng/mL; 50% when the PSA level was 11 ng/mL or greater, P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS The combination of experience and the protocol described minimizes intra- and interobserver variability, thereby improving the predictive value of biopsy Gleason grading. Biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores correlate more poorly when the PSA level is high (11 ng/mL or greater) than when the PSA level is low (less than 5 ng/mL).

[1]  L. Layfield,et al.  Proliferative index determination in prostatic carcinoma tissue: is there any additional prognostic value greater than that of Gleason score, ploidy and pathological stage? , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[2]  R. Oyasu,et al.  The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1984, The Journal of urology.

[3]  D. Chan,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[4]  J. Epstein,et al.  Utilization of high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies in an independent laboratory. , 1995, Urology.

[5]  R. Babaian,et al.  Reliability of Gleason grading system in comparing prostate biopsies with total prostatectomy specimens. , 1985, Urology.

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

[7]  D. Bostwick Grading prostate cancer. , 1994, American journal of clinical pathology.

[8]  S. Mills,et al.  Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens , 1986, Cancer.

[9]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. , 1995, Urology.

[10]  P. Narayan,et al.  A comparison of fine needle aspiration and core biopsy in diagnosis and preoperative grading of prostate cancer. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[11]  W. Fair,et al.  Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[12]  P. Unger,et al.  Indications for seminal vesicle biopsy and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[13]  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.

[14]  A. V. von Eschenbach,et al.  Prognostic factors for clinically localized prostate carcinoma , 1997, Cancer.

[15]  Galina Pizov,et al.  Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy , 1993, Cancer.

[16]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[17]  D. Wood,et al.  Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. , 1994, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[18]  D. Thickman,et al.  Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[19]  N. Olson,et al.  Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[20]  P. Lange,et al.  Understaging and undergrading of prostate cancer. Argument for postoperative radiation as adjuvant therapy. , 1983, Urology.

[21]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1987, The Journal of urology.