Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy - An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology

被引:80
作者
Latour, Mathieu [1 ]
Amin, Mahul B. [4 ]
Billis, Athanase [5 ]
Egevad, Lars [6 ]
Grignon, David J. [7 ]
Humphrey, Peter A. [8 ]
Reuter, Victor E. [9 ]
Sakr, Wael A. [10 ]
Srigley, John R. [11 ]
Wheeler, Thomas M. [12 ]
Yang, Ximing J. [13 ]
Epstein, Jonathan I. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Oncol, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
[4] Cedars Sinai Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Los Angeles, CA 90048 USA
[5] Univ Estadual Campinas, Dept Pathol, Sch Med, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[6] WHO, IARC, Lyon, France
[7] Indiana Univ, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[8] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Div Anat Pathol, St Louis, MO USA
[9] MSKCC, Dept Pathol, New York, NY USA
[10] Wayne State Univ, Detroit, MI USA
[11] Credit Valley Hosp, Dept Lab Med, Mississauga, ON, Canada
[12] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Pathol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[13] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
cribriform; carcinoma of the prostate; prostate needle biopsy; Gleason grading;
D O I
10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
The distinction between cribriform Gleason pattern 3 and 4 prostate cancer is controversial. Out of 3590 prostate cancers sent to one of the authors over 7 months, 30 needle biopsy cases were selected that possibly represented cribriform Gleason pattern 3 cancer. Thirty-six digital images were taken and sent to 10 experts in prostate pathology. Consensus was defined when at least 7/10 experts agreed on the grade. Sixty-seven percent (n = 24) of images reached consensus (23 pattern 4; 1 pattern 3). Of the 12 nonconsensus images, 7 were favor pattern 4 (6/10 experts agreed), 1 was favor pattern 3 (6/10 experts agreed), and 4 were equivocal ( < 6 experts agreed). The most common criteria used to call pattern 4 in the 23 consensus pattern 4 images were in frequency: irregular contour, irregular distribution of lumens, slit-like lumens, large glands, number of glands, and small lumens. In the only consensus pattern 3 image, criteria used were regular contour, small glands, regular distribution of lumens, and uniform round lumens. Discrepancy between experts was qualified as primarily objective (different criteria present) in 38%, subjective (different interpretation of the same criteria) in 12%, and mixed (both objective and subjective) in 50%. The most frequent situation with different interpretations of the same criteria were regular versus irregular contour and small versus large glands, with the former more common. Even in this highly selected set of images thought to be the best candidates for cribriform pattern 3 from a busy consult service, most experts interpreted the cribriform patterns as pattern 4. Moreover, most of the cribriform foci investigated (73%) were associated with more definitive pattern 4 elsewhere on the needle biopsy specimen. In conclusion, most of the small cribriform cancer foci seen on needle biopsy should be interpreted as Gleason pattern 4 and not pattern 3.
引用
收藏
页码:1532 / 1539
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
AMIN MB, 1994, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V118, P260
[2]  
Bailar J C 3rd, 1966, Cancer Chemother Rep, V50, P129
[3]   ARCHITECTURAL PATTERNS OF HIGH-GRADE PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA [J].
BOSTWICK, DG ;
AMIN, MB ;
DUNDORE, P ;
MARSH, W ;
SCHULTZ, DS .
HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 1993, 24 (03) :298-310
[4]  
Cohen RJ, 2000, PROSTATE, V43, P11, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(20000401)43:1<11::AID-PROS3>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-B
[6]  
Cohen RJ, 2007, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V131, P1103
[7]   Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists [J].
Egevad, L ;
Allsbrook, WC ;
Epstein, JI .
HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 2005, 36 (01) :5-9
[8]   Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer [J].
Egevad, L ;
Granfors, T ;
Karlberg, L ;
Bergh, A ;
Stattin, P .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2002, 89 (06) :538-542
[9]   The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma [J].
Epstein, JI ;
Allsbrook, WC ;
Amin, MB ;
Egevad, LL ;
Bastacky, S ;
Beltrán, AL ;
Berner, A ;
Billis, A ;
Boccon-Gibod, L ;
Cheng, L ;
Civantos, F ;
Cohen, C ;
Cohen, MB ;
Datta, M ;
Davis, C ;
Delahunt, B ;
Delprado, W ;
Eble, JN ;
Foster, CS ;
Furusato, M ;
Gaudin, PB ;
Grignon, DJ ;
Humphrey, PA ;
Iczkowski, KA ;
Jones, EC ;
Lucia, S ;
McCue, PA ;
Nazeer, T ;
Oliva, E ;
Pan, CC ;
Pizov, G ;
Reuter, V ;
Samaratunga, H ;
Sebo, T ;
Sesterhenn, I ;
Shevchuk, M ;
Srigley, JR ;
Suzigan, S ;
Takahashi, H ;
Tamboli, P ;
Tan, PH ;
Têtu, B ;
Tickoo, S ;
Tomaszewski, JE ;
Troncoso, P ;
Tsuzuki, T ;
True, LD ;
van der Kwast, T ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Wojno, KJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2005, 29 (09) :1228-1242
[10]   PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS FOR PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA BY COMBINED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING AND CLINICAL STAGING [J].
GLEASON, DF ;
MELLINGE.GT .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1974, 111 (01) :58-64