Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays.

The Gleason system is the internationally recognized standard for grading prostate cancer, due mainly to its strong prognostic capability. However, interobserver reproducibility is variable in the community setting. Herein we present a novel approach to evaluating Gleason grading among pathologists using high-density tissue microarrays (TMAs). A CD-ROM containing 537 different TMA spot images of 0.6-mm diameter was sent to 10 genitourinary pathologists in France. The pathologists were expected to score each TMA spot based on their experience evaluating standard prostate biopsies, transurethral resections, and prostatectomy samples. There was no consensus meeting beforehand to agree on how the group would apply the Gleason grading system for this project. Percentage of agreement and kappa value were used to assess the level of agreement. A short questionnaire was sent to assess pathologists' opinion on this new approach to evaluating Gleason grading. An average of 311 images were analyzed (range, 104 to 537; median, 256.5). Four of the pathologists evaluated all 537 images and assigned Gleason grades to 149 images with an overall kappa for interobserver agreement for the exact score between 0.31 and 0.52 and between 0.45 to 0.69 if 3 Gleason categories (</=6, 7, and >7) were used. When 2 categories were considered (</=7 or >7), kappa ranged from 0.58 to 0.83. All pathologists analyzed 104 images. Similar results were obtained with an agreement between 0.28 and 0.54 for the 3 Gleason categories. After finishing this test, 90% of genitourinary pathologists considered this approach useful for resident training and 90% for pathology teaching. We conclude that a Gleason score can be easily assigned to each TMA spot of a 0.6-mm-diameter prostate cancer sample. These data also indicated that using TMA spot images may be a good approach for teaching the Gleason grading system due to the small area of tissue.

[1]  K. Pienta,et al.  Tissue Microarray Sampling Strategy for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Analysis , 2002, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[3]  [Reproducibility and prognostic value of Gleason's and Gaeta's histological grades in prostatic carcinoma]. , 1986, Annales d'urologie.

[4]  M. Rubin,et al.  Relational database structure to manage high-density tissue microarray data and images for pathology studies focusing on clinical outcome: the prostate specialized program of research excellence model. , 2001, The American journal of pathology.

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

[6]  J. Kononen,et al.  Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens , 1998, Nature Medicine.

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

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

[9]  S J Cina,et al.  Pathology residents' use of a Web-based tutorial to improve Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma on needle biopsies. , 2000, Human pathology.

[10]  D. Bostwick,et al.  The pathologist as optimist: cancer grade deflation in prostatic needle biopsies. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  G. Parmigiani,et al.  Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. , 2001, Human pathology.

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

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

[15]  A W Partin,et al.  Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. , 2002, Urology.

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

[17]  A. Partin,et al.  Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  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)).

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