Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens.

PURPOSE Pathological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens has not been uniform among pathologists. We investigated interobserver variability of radical prostatectomy specimen reviews between local and central pathologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS We collated data from 50 institutions on 2,015 patients with cT1c-3 prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1997 and 2005. All radical prostatectomy specimens were retrospectively reevaluated by a central uropathologist. Gleason score, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, positive surgical margin, year of diagnosis and pathology volume were recorded. RESULTS The exact concordance rate of Gleason score between local and central review was 54.8%, and under grading and over grading rates at local review were 25.9% and 19.2%, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was 0.61 for local and central radical prostatectomy Gleason score. The exact concordance rate of Gleason score 8-10 at local review was significantly lower than that of Gleason score 5-6, 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 at local review (p = 0.011, <0.001 and 0.006). Exact concordance rates between local and central review for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement and positive surgical margin were 82.5%, 97.6%, 99.6% and 87.5%, respectively. High volume institutions and recently diagnosed cohorts showed significantly higher exact concordance rates between local and central review for radical prostatectomy Gleason score and other pathological features (all p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS High volume institutions and recent series show higher concordance between local and central review of radical prostatectomy pathology. However, concordance for high grade Gleason score, extracapsular extension and surgical margin status remains poor. Radical prostatectomy specimens should be reevaluated in a multi-institutional study for more accurate pathological data.

[1]  Jorge Yao,et al.  Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

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

[5]  M. Piérart,et al.  Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911) , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  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.

[7]  Pierre I Karakiewicz,et al.  Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[8]  E. Messing,et al.  Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[9]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, European urology.

[11]  D. Paulson.  Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[12]  E. Bergstralh,et al.  Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[13]  Seymour Rosen,et al.  Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

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

[15]  David J. Grignon,et al.  The Prostatic Capsule: Does It Exist? Its Importance in the Staging and Treatment of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1989, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[16]  J. Epstein,et al.  A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[17]  C. King,et al.  Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: Trends and clinical implications , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[18]  M. Kattan,et al.  Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

[20]  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.

[21]  F. Saad,et al.  Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology? , 2002, BJU international.

[22]  M. Kattan,et al.  Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. , 1998, Human pathology.

[23]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.