Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens
- PMID: 20083260
- DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.024
Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens
Abstract
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.
2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Second opinions in pathology.J Urol. 2010 Mar;183(3):850-1. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.064. Epub 2010 Jan 20. J Urol. 2010. PMID: 20089265 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Lack of association of prostate carcinoma nuclear grading with prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy.J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2193-7. J Urol. 2001. PMID: 11696734
-
Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.J Urol. 2004 Jul;172(1):98-102. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000132135.18093.d6. J Urol. 2004. PMID: 15201746
-
The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy.J Urol. 2009 Jan;181(1):95-104; discussion 104. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.016. Epub 2008 Nov 13. J Urol. 2009. PMID: 19012937
-
Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies.BJU Int. 2005 Jun;95(8):1146-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05540.x. BJU Int. 2005. PMID: 15877724 Review.
-
International society of urological pathology consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens.Adv Anat Pathol. 2011 Jul;18(4):301-5. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0b013e3182211ce0. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011. PMID: 21654361 Review.
Cited by
-
[Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].Urologe A. 2014 Nov;53(11):1644-50. doi: 10.1007/s00120-014-3584-3. Urologe A. 2014. PMID: 25272987 German.
-
Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy.Urol Oncol. 2017 Jul;35(7):461.e1-461.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.02.007. Epub 2017 Mar 13. Urol Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28302349 Free PMC article.
-
Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Jul;11(7):812-9. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0102. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013. PMID: 23847218 Free PMC article.
-
The clinical impact of pathological review on selection the treatment modality for localized prostate cancer in candidates for brachytherapy monotherapy.World J Urol. 2012 Jun;30(3):375-8. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0738-4. Epub 2011 Aug 17. World J Urol. 2012. PMID: 21847658
-
PTEN and DNA Ploidy Status by Machine Learning in Prostate Cancer.Cancers (Basel). 2021 Aug 26;13(17):4291. doi: 10.3390/cancers13174291. Cancers (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34503100 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical