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

Mathieu Latour, Mahul B. Amin, Athanase Billis, Lars Egevad, David Grignon, Peter A. Humphrey, Victor E. Reuter, Wael A. Sakr, John R. Srigley, Thomas M. Wheeler, Ximing J. Yang, Jonathan I. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

75 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1532-1539
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume32
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

Needle Biopsy
Prostate
Adenocarcinoma
Pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Carcinoma of the prostate
  • Cribriform
  • Gleason grading
  • Prostate needle biopsy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy : An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. / Latour, Mathieu; Amin, Mahul B.; Billis, Athanase; Egevad, Lars; Grignon, David; Humphrey, Peter A.; Reuter, Victor E.; Sakr, Wael A.; Srigley, John R.; Wheeler, Thomas M.; Yang, Ximing J.; Epstein, Jonathan I.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 32, No. 10, 10.2008, p. 1532-1539.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Latour, M, Amin, MB, Billis, A, Egevad, L, Grignon, D, Humphrey, PA, Reuter, VE, Sakr, WA, Srigley, JR, Wheeler, TM, Yang, XJ & Epstein, JI 2008, 'Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology', American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1532-1539. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd
Latour, Mathieu ; Amin, Mahul B. ; Billis, Athanase ; Egevad, Lars ; Grignon, David ; Humphrey, Peter A. ; Reuter, Victor E. ; Sakr, Wael A. ; Srigley, John R. ; Wheeler, Thomas M. ; Yang, Ximing J. ; Epstein, Jonathan I. / Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy : An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2008 ; Vol. 32, No. 10. pp. 1532-1539.
@article{75ce1c4baeeb489f84963eb7e4a46bb4,
title = "Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Carcinoma of the prostate, Cribriform, Gleason grading, Prostate needle biopsy",
author = "Mathieu Latour and Amin, {Mahul B.} and Athanase Billis and Lars Egevad and David Grignon and Humphrey, {Peter A.} and Reuter, {Victor E.} and Sakr, {Wael A.} and Srigley, {John R.} and Wheeler, {Thomas M.} and Yang, {Ximing J.} and Epstein, {Jonathan I.}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1532--1539",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy

T2 - An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology

AU - Latour, Mathieu

AU - Amin, Mahul B.

AU - Billis, Athanase

AU - Egevad, Lars

AU - Grignon, David

AU - Humphrey, Peter A.

AU - Reuter, Victor E.

AU - Sakr, Wael A.

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Wheeler, Thomas M.

AU - Yang, Ximing J.

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Carcinoma of the prostate

KW - Cribriform

KW - Gleason grading

KW - Prostate needle biopsy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53449095423&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53449095423&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd

DO - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd

M3 - Article

C2 - 18724248

AN - SCOPUS:53449095423

VL - 32

SP - 1532

EP - 1539

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 10

ER -