Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading
- 232 Downloads
Our aims were to analyze reporting of Gleason pattern (GP) 3 and 4 prostate cancer with the ISUP 2005 Gleason grading and to collect consensus cases for standardization. We scanned 25 prostate biopsy cores diagnosed as Gleason score (GS) 6–7. Fifteen genitourinary pathologists graded the digital slides and circled GP 4 and 5 in a slide viewer. Grading difficulty was scored as 1–3. GP 4 components were classified as type 1 (cribriform), 2 (fused), or 3 (poorly formed glands). A GS of 5–6, 7 (3 + 4), 7 (4 + 3), and 8–9 was given in 29%, 41%, 19%, and 10% (mean GS 6.84, range 6.44–7.36). In 15 cases, at least 67% of observers agreed on GS groups (consensus cases). Mean interobserver weighted kappa for GS groups was 0.43. Mean difficulty scores in consensus and non-consensus cases were 1.44 and 1.66 (p = 0.003). Pattern 4 types 1, 2, and 3 were seen in 28%, 86%, and 67% of GP 4. All three coexisted in 16% (11% and 23% in consensus and non-consensus cases, p = 0.03). Average estimated and calculated %GP 4/5 were 29% and 16%. After individual review, the experts met to analyze diagnostic difficulties. Areas of GP 4 and 5 were displayed as heat maps, which were helpful for identifying contentious areas. A key problem was to agree on minimal criteria for small foci of GP 4. In summary, the detection threshold for GP 4 in NBX needs to be better defined. This set of consensus cases may be useful for standardization.
KeywordsProstate cancer Biopsy Gleason grading Digital pathology Reproducibility Consensus
Source of support: DMB is supported by Orchid.
Conflict of interest statement
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Jones EC, Reuter VE, Sakr W, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32:74–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lang S, Lee FD, McLaren KM, Nairn ER, Ogston SA, Robertson AJ, Simpson JG, Smith GD, Tavadia HB, Walker F (1997) Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum Pathol 28:646–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, Murray JD, Wilcox C, Samaratunga H, Atkinson C, Spry NA, Joseph D, Denham JW (2010) Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 42:339–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Deshmukh N, Foster CS (1998) Grading prostate cancer. In: Foster CS, Bostwick DG (eds) Pathology of the prostate. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 191–227Google Scholar
- 18.Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U (2008) The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 180:548–552, discussion 552–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar