Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: General pathologists

William C. Allsbrook, Kathy A. Mangold, Maribeth H. Johnson, Roger B. Lane, Cynthia G. Lane, Jonathan I. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

223 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Only a few large studies of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma exist. Thirty-eight biopsies containing prostate cancer were distributed for Gleason grading to 41 general pathologists in Georgia. These cases had "consensus" Gleason grade groups (2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10) that were agreed on by at least 7 of 10 urologic pathologists. The overall kappa (κ) coefficient for interobserver agreement for these 38 cases was 0.435, barely moderate agreement, with a κ range from 0.00 to 0.88. There was consistent undergrading of Gleason scores 5-6 (47%), 7 (47%) and, to a lesser extent, 8-10 (25%). In cases with consensus primary patterns, there was consistent undergrading of patterns 2 (32%), 3 (39%), and 5 (30%). Pattern 2 was often (17%) mistaken for pattern 3. Pattern 4 was often undergraded (21%) and also mistaken for pattern 5 (17%). The most significant (P < .005) demographic factor associated with better interobserver agreement was having learned Gleason grading at a meeting or course. We believe that Gleason grading can be learned to a satisfactory level of interobserver reproducibility and have undertaken additional studies that support this belief.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)81-88
Number of pages8
JournalHuman Pathology
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Carcinoma
Prostatic Neoplasms
Demography
Pathologists
Biopsy

Keywords

  • Gleason grading
  • Grading
  • Interobserver reproducibility
  • Prostatic adenocarcinoma
  • Prostatic carcinoma
  • Prostatic neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma : General pathologists. / Allsbrook, William C.; Mangold, Kathy A.; Johnson, Maribeth H.; Lane, Roger B.; Lane, Cynthia G.; Epstein, Jonathan I.

In: Human Pathology, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.01.2001, p. 81-88.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Allsbrook, William C. ; Mangold, Kathy A. ; Johnson, Maribeth H. ; Lane, Roger B. ; Lane, Cynthia G. ; Epstein, Jonathan I. / Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma : General pathologists. In: Human Pathology. 2001 ; Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 81-88.
@article{d228610d12394945b945f7a11dd7785d,
title = "Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: General pathologists",
abstract = "Only a few large studies of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma exist. Thirty-eight biopsies containing prostate cancer were distributed for Gleason grading to 41 general pathologists in Georgia. These cases had {"}consensus{"} Gleason grade groups (2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10) that were agreed on by at least 7 of 10 urologic pathologists. The overall kappa (κ) coefficient for interobserver agreement for these 38 cases was 0.435, barely moderate agreement, with a κ range from 0.00 to 0.88. There was consistent undergrading of Gleason scores 5-6 (47{\%}), 7 (47{\%}) and, to a lesser extent, 8-10 (25{\%}). In cases with consensus primary patterns, there was consistent undergrading of patterns 2 (32{\%}), 3 (39{\%}), and 5 (30{\%}). Pattern 2 was often (17{\%}) mistaken for pattern 3. Pattern 4 was often undergraded (21{\%}) and also mistaken for pattern 5 (17{\%}). The most significant (P < .005) demographic factor associated with better interobserver agreement was having learned Gleason grading at a meeting or course. We believe that Gleason grading can be learned to a satisfactory level of interobserver reproducibility and have undertaken additional studies that support this belief.",
keywords = "Gleason grading, Grading, Interobserver reproducibility, Prostatic adenocarcinoma, Prostatic carcinoma, Prostatic neoplasms",
author = "Allsbrook, {William C.} and Mangold, {Kathy A.} and Johnson, {Maribeth H.} and Lane, {Roger B.} and Lane, {Cynthia G.} and Epstein, {Jonathan I.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/hupa.2001.21135",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "81--88",
journal = "Human Pathology",
issn = "0046-8177",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma

T2 - General pathologists

AU - Allsbrook, William C.

AU - Mangold, Kathy A.

AU - Johnson, Maribeth H.

AU - Lane, Roger B.

AU - Lane, Cynthia G.

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Only a few large studies of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma exist. Thirty-eight biopsies containing prostate cancer were distributed for Gleason grading to 41 general pathologists in Georgia. These cases had "consensus" Gleason grade groups (2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10) that were agreed on by at least 7 of 10 urologic pathologists. The overall kappa (κ) coefficient for interobserver agreement for these 38 cases was 0.435, barely moderate agreement, with a κ range from 0.00 to 0.88. There was consistent undergrading of Gleason scores 5-6 (47%), 7 (47%) and, to a lesser extent, 8-10 (25%). In cases with consensus primary patterns, there was consistent undergrading of patterns 2 (32%), 3 (39%), and 5 (30%). Pattern 2 was often (17%) mistaken for pattern 3. Pattern 4 was often undergraded (21%) and also mistaken for pattern 5 (17%). The most significant (P < .005) demographic factor associated with better interobserver agreement was having learned Gleason grading at a meeting or course. We believe that Gleason grading can be learned to a satisfactory level of interobserver reproducibility and have undertaken additional studies that support this belief.

AB - Only a few large studies of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma exist. Thirty-eight biopsies containing prostate cancer were distributed for Gleason grading to 41 general pathologists in Georgia. These cases had "consensus" Gleason grade groups (2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10) that were agreed on by at least 7 of 10 urologic pathologists. The overall kappa (κ) coefficient for interobserver agreement for these 38 cases was 0.435, barely moderate agreement, with a κ range from 0.00 to 0.88. There was consistent undergrading of Gleason scores 5-6 (47%), 7 (47%) and, to a lesser extent, 8-10 (25%). In cases with consensus primary patterns, there was consistent undergrading of patterns 2 (32%), 3 (39%), and 5 (30%). Pattern 2 was often (17%) mistaken for pattern 3. Pattern 4 was often undergraded (21%) and also mistaken for pattern 5 (17%). The most significant (P < .005) demographic factor associated with better interobserver agreement was having learned Gleason grading at a meeting or course. We believe that Gleason grading can be learned to a satisfactory level of interobserver reproducibility and have undertaken additional studies that support this belief.

KW - Gleason grading

KW - Grading

KW - Interobserver reproducibility

KW - Prostatic adenocarcinoma

KW - Prostatic carcinoma

KW - Prostatic neoplasms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035122453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035122453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/hupa.2001.21135

DO - 10.1053/hupa.2001.21135

M3 - Article

C2 - 11172299

AN - SCOPUS:0035122453

VL - 32

SP - 81

EP - 88

JO - Human Pathology

JF - Human Pathology

SN - 0046-8177

IS - 1

ER -