Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Histopathology. 2016 Sep;69(3):441-9. doi: 10.1111/his.12976. Epub 2016 May 24.

Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists.

Author information

1
Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
2
Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Pathology, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
4
Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
5
Department of Cellular Pathology, The Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
6
Department of Anatomical Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil.
7
Bostwick Laboratories, Orlando, FL, USA.
8
Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
9
Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
10
Service d'Anatomie & Cytologie Pathologiques du Pr Capron, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
11
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
12
Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
13
Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
14
Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
15
Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
16
Institute of Pathology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
17
Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
18
Section of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), Ancona, Italy.
19
Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
20
Aquesta Pathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
21
Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
22
Department of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
23
Department of Medical Genetics, Haematology and Pathology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
24
Department of Pathology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Abstract

AIMS:

To assess the interobserver reproducibility of individual Gleason grade 4 growth patterns.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

Twenty-three genitourinary pathologists participated in the evaluation of 60 selected high-magnification photographs. The selection included 10 cases of Gleason grade 3, 40 of Gleason grade 4 (10 per growth pattern), and 10 of Gleason grade 5. Participants were asked to select a single predominant Gleason grade per case (3, 4, or 5), and to indicate the predominant Gleason grade 4 growth pattern, if present. 'Consensus' was defined as at least 80% agreement, and 'favoured' as 60-80% agreement. Consensus on Gleason grading was reached in 47 of 60 (78%) cases, 35 of which were assigned to grade 4. In the 13 non-consensus cases, ill-formed (6/13, 46%) and fused (7/13, 54%) patterns were involved in the disagreement. Among the 20 cases where at least one pathologist assigned the ill-formed growth pattern, none (0%, 0/20) reached consensus. Consensus for fused, cribriform and glomeruloid glands was reached in 2%, 23% and 38% of cases, respectively. In nine of 35 (26%) consensus Gleason grade 4 cases, participants disagreed on the growth pattern. Six of these were characterized by large epithelial proliferations with delicate intervening fibrovascular cores, which were alternatively given the designation fused or cribriform growth pattern ('complex fused').

CONCLUSIONS:

Consensus on Gleason grade 4 growth pattern was predominantly reached on cribriform and glomeruloid patterns, but rarely on ill-formed and fused glands. The complex fused glands seem to constitute a borderline pattern of unknown prognostic significance on which a consensus could not be reached.

KEYWORDS:

Gleason grading; interobserver variability; prostate cancer

PMID:
27028587
DOI:
10.1111/his.12976
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for IUPUI ScholarWorks
Loading ...
Support Center