Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists

Amanda H. Seipel, Brett Delahunt, Hemamali Samaratunga, Mahul Amin, Joel Barton, Daniel M. Berney, Athanase Billis, Liang Cheng, Eva Comperat, Andrew Evans, Samson W. Fine, David Grignon, Peter A. Humphrey, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Rodolfo Montironi, Isabell Sesterhenn, John R. Srigley, Kiril Trpkov, Theo van der Kwast, Murali VarmaMing Zhou, Amar Ahmad, Sue Moss, Lars Egevad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. Methods and results: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). Conclusions: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)216-227
Number of pages12
JournalHistopathology
Volume65
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Observer Variation
Prostate
Adenocarcinoma
Ductal Carcinoma
Prostatic Neoplasms
Differential Diagnosis
Necrosis
Epithelium

Keywords

  • Ductal cancer
  • Pathology
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Histology
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Seipel, A. H., Delahunt, B., Samaratunga, H., Amin, M., Barton, J., Berney, D. M., ... Egevad, L. (2014). Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists. Histopathology, 65(2), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12382

Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate : Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists. / Seipel, Amanda H.; Delahunt, Brett; Samaratunga, Hemamali; Amin, Mahul; Barton, Joel; Berney, Daniel M.; Billis, Athanase; Cheng, Liang; Comperat, Eva; Evans, Andrew; Fine, Samson W.; Grignon, David; Humphrey, Peter A.; Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina; Montironi, Rodolfo; Sesterhenn, Isabell; Srigley, John R.; Trpkov, Kiril; van der Kwast, Theo; Varma, Murali; Zhou, Ming; Ahmad, Amar; Moss, Sue; Egevad, Lars.

In: Histopathology, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2014, p. 216-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seipel, AH, Delahunt, B, Samaratunga, H, Amin, M, Barton, J, Berney, DM, Billis, A, Cheng, L, Comperat, E, Evans, A, Fine, SW, Grignon, D, Humphrey, PA, Magi-Galluzzi, C, Montironi, R, Sesterhenn, I, Srigley, JR, Trpkov, K, van der Kwast, T, Varma, M, Zhou, M, Ahmad, A, Moss, S & Egevad, L 2014, 'Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists', Histopathology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12382
Seipel, Amanda H. ; Delahunt, Brett ; Samaratunga, Hemamali ; Amin, Mahul ; Barton, Joel ; Berney, Daniel M. ; Billis, Athanase ; Cheng, Liang ; Comperat, Eva ; Evans, Andrew ; Fine, Samson W. ; Grignon, David ; Humphrey, Peter A. ; Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Sesterhenn, Isabell ; Srigley, John R. ; Trpkov, Kiril ; van der Kwast, Theo ; Varma, Murali ; Zhou, Ming ; Ahmad, Amar ; Moss, Sue ; Egevad, Lars. / Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate : Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists. In: Histopathology. 2014 ; Vol. 65, No. 2. pp. 216-227.
@article{7521c5e712d541e28cdd2c6457d821e0,
title = "Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists",
abstract = "Aims: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. Methods and results: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52{\%}) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24{\%}) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86{\%}), stratification of nuclei (82{\%}), high-grade nuclear features (54{\%}), tall columnar epithelium (53{\%}), elongated nuclei (52{\%}), cribriform architecture (40{\%}), and necrosis (7{\%}). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59{\%}), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11{\%} of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52{\%}), high-grade PIN (37{\%}), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17{\%}). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33{\%}). Conclusions: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.",
keywords = "Ductal cancer, Pathology, Prostate cancer, Prostatectomy",
author = "Seipel, {Amanda H.} and Brett Delahunt and Hemamali Samaratunga and Mahul Amin and Joel Barton and Berney, {Daniel M.} and Athanase Billis and Liang Cheng and Eva Comperat and Andrew Evans and Fine, {Samson W.} and David Grignon and Humphrey, {Peter A.} and Cristina Magi-Galluzzi and Rodolfo Montironi and Isabell Sesterhenn and Srigley, {John R.} and Kiril Trpkov and {van der Kwast}, Theo and Murali Varma and Ming Zhou and Amar Ahmad and Sue Moss and Lars Egevad",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/his.12382",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "216--227",
journal = "Histopathology",
issn = "0309-0167",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate

T2 - Interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists

AU - Seipel, Amanda H.

AU - Delahunt, Brett

AU - Samaratunga, Hemamali

AU - Amin, Mahul

AU - Barton, Joel

AU - Berney, Daniel M.

AU - Billis, Athanase

AU - Cheng, Liang

AU - Comperat, Eva

AU - Evans, Andrew

AU - Fine, Samson W.

AU - Grignon, David

AU - Humphrey, Peter A.

AU - Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

AU - Sesterhenn, Isabell

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Trpkov, Kiril

AU - van der Kwast, Theo

AU - Varma, Murali

AU - Zhou, Ming

AU - Ahmad, Amar

AU - Moss, Sue

AU - Egevad, Lars

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Aims: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. Methods and results: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). Conclusions: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.

AB - Aims: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. Methods and results: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). Conclusions: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.

KW - Ductal cancer

KW - Pathology

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904395420&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904395420&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/his.12382

DO - 10.1111/his.12382

M3 - Article

C2 - 24467262

AN - SCOPUS:84904395420

VL - 65

SP - 216

EP - 227

JO - Histopathology

JF - Histopathology

SN - 0309-0167

IS - 2

ER -