Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading

Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading.

[1]  Annette J. Dobson,et al.  General observer-agreement measures on individual subjects and groups of subjects , 1984 .

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

[3]  Toyonori Tsuzuki,et al.  Diagnosis of “Poorly Formed Glands” Gleason Pattern 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists With Recommendations , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[4]  D. Berney,et al.  Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists , 2013, Histopathology.

[5]  J. Epstein,et al.  A web‐based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy , 2000, Cancer.

[6]  Daan Nieboer,et al.  Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists , 2016, Histopathology.

[7]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. , 2005, Human pathology.

[8]  Chin-Lee Wu,et al.  Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[10]  Toyonori Tsuzuki,et al.  Diagnosis of Gleason Pattern 5 Prostate Adenocarcinoma on Core Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

[12]  K. Iczkowski,et al.  Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy: Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[13]  Andrew J. Evans,et al.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.

[14]  A. Haese*,et al.  Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. , 2016, European urology.

[15]  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.

[16]  R. Engers.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms , 2007, World Journal of Urology.

[17]  Martin Eklund,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

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

[19]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[20]  L. Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Pathology Imagebase—a reference image database for standardization of pathology , 2017, Histopathology.

[22]  H. Schouten,et al.  Measuring pairwise interobserver agreement when all subjects are judged by the same observers , 1982 .

[23]  P. Stattin,et al.  Gleason inflation 1998–2011: a registry study of 97 168 men , 2015, BJU international.