287
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Interobserver variability in the pathological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens: Findings of the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) study

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 160-167 | Received 12 Mar 2013, Accepted 20 Jun 2013, Published online: 01 Aug 2013
 

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to strengthen the validity of future findings in the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) study by investigating the extent of interobserver variability between local pathologists and re-evaluating reference pathologists. Material and methods. LAPPRO is a Swedish prospective study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Patients were recruited from 2008 to 2011. A random selection of 289 prostatectomy specimens was re-evaluated, in a blind fashion, by two reference pathologists from a University Hospital in Denmark and compared with original reports from local pathologists. Results. The exact concordance rate of Gleason score (GS) between local and reference pathologists was 56% (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.54). Exact concordance rates (κ value) for pathological tumour stage (pT), extraprostatic extension (EPE), surgical margin status (SMS) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were 87% (0.63), 86% (0.59), 92% (0.76) and 98% (0.82), respectively. In subanalyses for surgical technique, exact concordance rates of GS, pT, EPE, SMS and SVI were 58%, 83%, 84%, 90% and 97%, respectively, for surgical technique 1 (ST1), compared to 55%, 88%, 87%, 93% and 98%, for surgical technique 2 (ST2). In ST1 specimens undergrading of GS by the local pathologists compared to central review was more common than overgrading (26% vs 16%). The inverse relationship was seen in ST2 specimens (14% vs 32%). Conclusion. Re-evaluation of randomly selected prostatectomy specimens in the LAPPRO cohort showed comparable results compared to previous studies of this kind. A systematic variation in the assessment of GS exists, attributable to individual differences in judgement between pathologists. Dichotomising GS (≤ 7 vs ≥ 8) overcomes the systematic variation.

Acknowledgements

The study is supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Foundation, Region Skåne, Lund University (ALF grant), Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital (ALF grant 138751, Agreement concerning research and education of doctors), Sanofi-Aventis and Mary von Sydow Foundation.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access
  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart
* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.