A UK‐based investigation of inter‐ and intra‐observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies

Aims:  The frequency of prostatic core biopsies to detect cancer has been increasing with more widespread prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. Gleason score has important implications for patient management but morphological reproducibility data for British practice are limited. Using literature‐based criteria nine uropathologists took part in a reproducibility study.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[2]  D. Gleason.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[3]  J. Bailar,et al.  The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. , 1967, The Journal of urology.

[4]  J. Fleiss.  Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[5]  A Böcking,et al.  Histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. , 1980, Pathology, research and practice.

[6]  J. Hanson,et al.  Feasibility of Grading Prostatic Carcinomas , 1982 .

[7]  W. Hop,et al.  Grading of prostatic cancer: III. Multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters , 1985, The Prostate.

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

[9]  E. Fishell,et al.  Observer variation in the classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

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

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

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

[13]  A. Silman,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. , 1992, BMJ.

[14]  P. Hanno,et al.  The staging pelvic lymphadenectomy: implications as an adjunctive procedure for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1997, British journal of urology.

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

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

[17]  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.

[18]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing Risk Analysis of Men Aged 55 to 74 Years at Diagnosis Managed Conservatively for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer , 1998 .

[19]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[20]  Analysis of the clinical utility of the use of salvage brachytherapy in patients who have a rising PSA after definitive external beam radiation therapy. , 1999, Urology.

[21]  C. Pan,et al.  The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[22]  A W Partin,et al.  Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[23]  J. Epstein,et al.  Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[24]  N. Lee,et al.  Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer need a radionuclide bone scan? An analysis based on 631 patients. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[26]  D. Grignon,et al.  How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? , 2001, The Prostate.

[27]  G. Gustafson,et al.  Phase II prospective study of the use of conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for the treatment of favorable stage prostate cancer: a feasibility report. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[29]  A W Partin,et al.  Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[30]  R. Link,et al.  Indications for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. , 2001, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[31]  H. Frierson,et al.  Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years , 2002, Cancer.

[32]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[33]  S. Harland,et al.  Survival prospects after screen‐detection of prostate cancer , 2002, BJU international.

[34]  R. Stock,et al.  Biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[35]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Prostate cancer grade assignment: the effect of chronological, interpretive and translation bias. , 2003, Journal of Urology.

[36]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists. , 2003, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[37]  J. Bishoff,et al.  Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. , 2003, Urology.

[38]  J. Blasko,et al.  Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival after external beam radiation and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: the Seattle experience. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[39]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Broadening the criteria for avoiding staging bone scans in prostate cancer: a retrospective study of patients at the Royal Marsden Hospital , 2003, BJU international.

[40]  M. Kattan,et al.  The prognostic significance of Gleason Grade in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[41]  Steven Piantadosi,et al.  Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[42]  R. Babaian,et al.  The predictors of pelvic lymph node metastasis at radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

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

[44]  M. C. Parkinson,et al.  Radical prostatectomy: pathology findings in 1001 cases compared with other major series and over time , 2005, BJU international.

[45]  K. Grigor,et al.  Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. , 2005, European urology.

[46]  A. Henderson,et al.  Gleason scoring varies among pathologists and this affects clinical risk in patients with prostate cancer. , 2005, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[47]  R Y Ball,et al.  Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs , 2005 .

[48]  R Y Ball,et al.  A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility , 2006, Histopathology.

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