Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

J. I. Epstein, David Grignon, P. A. Humphrey, J. E. McNeal, I. A. Sesterhenn, P. Troncoso, T. M. Wheeler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

131 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To assess interobserver reproducibility in the categorization of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) seven pathologists reviewed 25 lesions. Rather than classic or consecutive examples of PIN, cases were selected to represent the full spectrum of diagnostic issues in this field. Lesions were classified into one of six categories: (a) benign prostate tissue, (b) PIN1, (c) PIN2, (d) PIN3, (e) PIN3 cannot rule out associated cancer, and (f) PIN3 plus cancer. Following evaluation of the slides, data were also analyzed by combining several of the groups into three categories: (a) benign/PIN1; (b) PIN2/PIN3/PIN cannot rule out cancer; and (c) PIN plus cancer. The level of agreement was fair (Kappa = 0.33) for the six categories and substantial (Kappa = 0.61) for the three groups. In no case was there a uniform diagnosis of PIN1; in all cases at least some pathologists considered the biopsies to be normal. This finding provides support for not commenting on PIN1 in biopsy material. In general, there was good distinction between low-grade PIN (PIN1) and high-grade (PIN) PIN2-3). Among the seven cases for which there was a consensus that the lesion represented high-grade PIN, there was no case in which there was uniform agreement as to whether the lesion represented PIN2 or PIN3. This finding supports combining PIN2 and PIN3 into high-grade PIN. Cases classified as low-grade PIN by some and as high-grade PIN by others were those with pleomorphism but without prominent nucleoli. Difficulties in distinguishing 'high grade PIN' from 'high grade PIN cannot rule out cancer' were those with cribriform glands, glands with necrosis, and where high- grade PIN was associated with only a few adjacent small atypical glands. These same histologies caused the participating pathologists difficulty in distinguishing 'high grade PIN cannot rule cancer' from 'high grade PIN plus cancer.'

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)873-886
Number of pages14
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume19
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Neoplasms
Biopsy

Keywords

  • Atypical hyperplasia
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Epstein, J. I., Grignon, D., Humphrey, P. A., McNeal, J. E., Sesterhenn, I. A., Troncoso, P., & Wheeler, T. M. (1995). Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 19(8), 873-886.

Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. / Epstein, J. I.; Grignon, David; Humphrey, P. A.; McNeal, J. E.; Sesterhenn, I. A.; Troncoso, P.; Wheeler, T. M.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 19, No. 8, 1995, p. 873-886.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Epstein, JI, Grignon, D, Humphrey, PA, McNeal, JE, Sesterhenn, IA, Troncoso, P & Wheeler, TM 1995, 'Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia', American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 873-886.
Epstein JI, Grignon D, Humphrey PA, McNeal JE, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 1995;19(8):873-886.
Epstein, J. I. ; Grignon, David ; Humphrey, P. A. ; McNeal, J. E. ; Sesterhenn, I. A. ; Troncoso, P. ; Wheeler, T. M. / Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 1995 ; Vol. 19, No. 8. pp. 873-886.
@article{e65986f391af4c8ab6324ab9b9c3032c,
title = "Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia",
abstract = "To assess interobserver reproducibility in the categorization of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) seven pathologists reviewed 25 lesions. Rather than classic or consecutive examples of PIN, cases were selected to represent the full spectrum of diagnostic issues in this field. Lesions were classified into one of six categories: (a) benign prostate tissue, (b) PIN1, (c) PIN2, (d) PIN3, (e) PIN3 cannot rule out associated cancer, and (f) PIN3 plus cancer. Following evaluation of the slides, data were also analyzed by combining several of the groups into three categories: (a) benign/PIN1; (b) PIN2/PIN3/PIN cannot rule out cancer; and (c) PIN plus cancer. The level of agreement was fair (Kappa = 0.33) for the six categories and substantial (Kappa = 0.61) for the three groups. In no case was there a uniform diagnosis of PIN1; in all cases at least some pathologists considered the biopsies to be normal. This finding provides support for not commenting on PIN1 in biopsy material. In general, there was good distinction between low-grade PIN (PIN1) and high-grade (PIN) PIN2-3). Among the seven cases for which there was a consensus that the lesion represented high-grade PIN, there was no case in which there was uniform agreement as to whether the lesion represented PIN2 or PIN3. This finding supports combining PIN2 and PIN3 into high-grade PIN. Cases classified as low-grade PIN by some and as high-grade PIN by others were those with pleomorphism but without prominent nucleoli. Difficulties in distinguishing 'high grade PIN' from 'high grade PIN cannot rule out cancer' were those with cribriform glands, glands with necrosis, and where high- grade PIN was associated with only a few adjacent small atypical glands. These same histologies caused the participating pathologists difficulty in distinguishing 'high grade PIN cannot rule cancer' from 'high grade PIN plus cancer.'",
keywords = "Atypical hyperplasia, Prostate cancer, Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia",
author = "Epstein, {J. I.} and David Grignon and Humphrey, {P. A.} and McNeal, {J. E.} and Sesterhenn, {I. A.} and P. Troncoso and Wheeler, {T. M.}",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "873--886",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

AU - Epstein, J. I.

AU - Grignon, David

AU - Humphrey, P. A.

AU - McNeal, J. E.

AU - Sesterhenn, I. A.

AU - Troncoso, P.

AU - Wheeler, T. M.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - To assess interobserver reproducibility in the categorization of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) seven pathologists reviewed 25 lesions. Rather than classic or consecutive examples of PIN, cases were selected to represent the full spectrum of diagnostic issues in this field. Lesions were classified into one of six categories: (a) benign prostate tissue, (b) PIN1, (c) PIN2, (d) PIN3, (e) PIN3 cannot rule out associated cancer, and (f) PIN3 plus cancer. Following evaluation of the slides, data were also analyzed by combining several of the groups into three categories: (a) benign/PIN1; (b) PIN2/PIN3/PIN cannot rule out cancer; and (c) PIN plus cancer. The level of agreement was fair (Kappa = 0.33) for the six categories and substantial (Kappa = 0.61) for the three groups. In no case was there a uniform diagnosis of PIN1; in all cases at least some pathologists considered the biopsies to be normal. This finding provides support for not commenting on PIN1 in biopsy material. In general, there was good distinction between low-grade PIN (PIN1) and high-grade (PIN) PIN2-3). Among the seven cases for which there was a consensus that the lesion represented high-grade PIN, there was no case in which there was uniform agreement as to whether the lesion represented PIN2 or PIN3. This finding supports combining PIN2 and PIN3 into high-grade PIN. Cases classified as low-grade PIN by some and as high-grade PIN by others were those with pleomorphism but without prominent nucleoli. Difficulties in distinguishing 'high grade PIN' from 'high grade PIN cannot rule out cancer' were those with cribriform glands, glands with necrosis, and where high- grade PIN was associated with only a few adjacent small atypical glands. These same histologies caused the participating pathologists difficulty in distinguishing 'high grade PIN cannot rule cancer' from 'high grade PIN plus cancer.'

AB - To assess interobserver reproducibility in the categorization of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) seven pathologists reviewed 25 lesions. Rather than classic or consecutive examples of PIN, cases were selected to represent the full spectrum of diagnostic issues in this field. Lesions were classified into one of six categories: (a) benign prostate tissue, (b) PIN1, (c) PIN2, (d) PIN3, (e) PIN3 cannot rule out associated cancer, and (f) PIN3 plus cancer. Following evaluation of the slides, data were also analyzed by combining several of the groups into three categories: (a) benign/PIN1; (b) PIN2/PIN3/PIN cannot rule out cancer; and (c) PIN plus cancer. The level of agreement was fair (Kappa = 0.33) for the six categories and substantial (Kappa = 0.61) for the three groups. In no case was there a uniform diagnosis of PIN1; in all cases at least some pathologists considered the biopsies to be normal. This finding provides support for not commenting on PIN1 in biopsy material. In general, there was good distinction between low-grade PIN (PIN1) and high-grade (PIN) PIN2-3). Among the seven cases for which there was a consensus that the lesion represented high-grade PIN, there was no case in which there was uniform agreement as to whether the lesion represented PIN2 or PIN3. This finding supports combining PIN2 and PIN3 into high-grade PIN. Cases classified as low-grade PIN by some and as high-grade PIN by others were those with pleomorphism but without prominent nucleoli. Difficulties in distinguishing 'high grade PIN' from 'high grade PIN cannot rule out cancer' were those with cribriform glands, glands with necrosis, and where high- grade PIN was associated with only a few adjacent small atypical glands. These same histologies caused the participating pathologists difficulty in distinguishing 'high grade PIN cannot rule cancer' from 'high grade PIN plus cancer.'

KW - Atypical hyperplasia

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029051081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029051081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7611534

AN - SCOPUS:0029051081

VL - 19

SP - 873

EP - 886

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 8

ER -