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

References

• The National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) in Sweden 2009. Uppsala: Regional Oncologic Center; 2011. Available at http://www.cancercentrum.se/Global/Diagnoser/prostata cancer/rapporter/NPCR_rapport_2009.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G, Algaba F. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int 2005;95:1146–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walz J, Chun FK, Klein EA, Reuther A, Saad F, Graefen M, et al. Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2009;181:601–7; discussion 7–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonarakis ES, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Carducci MA, Partin AW, et al. The natural history of metastatic progression in men with prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up. BJU Int 2012;109:32–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, DiBlasio CJ, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7005–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suardi N, Porter CR, Reuther AM, Walz J, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, et al. A nomogram predicting long-term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2008;112:1254–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR, The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011;117:5039–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Karakiewicz PI, Scardino PT. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol 2009;5:1555–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorsteinsdottir T, Stranne J, Carlsson S, Anderberg B, Bjorholt I, Damber JE, et al. LAPPRO: a prospective multicentre comparative study of robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2011;45:102–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, van der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 2011;24:26–38.
   Google Scholar
• Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. International Union Against Cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Ekici S, Ayhan A, Erkan I, Bakkaloglu M, Ozen H. The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003;37:387–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Usami M, Hirao Y, Naito S. Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2010;183:952–7.
   Google Scholar
• Netto GJ, Eisenberger M, Epstein JI. Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial. Urology 2010;77:1155–60.
   Google Scholar
• van der Kwast TH, Collette L, Van Poppel H, Van Cangh P, Vekemans K, DaPozzo L, et al. Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch 2006;449:428–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, Tkachuk DC, Watson K, Lockwood GA, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1503–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001;32:81–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001;32:74–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyama T, Allsbrook WC Jr, Kurokawa K, Matsuda H, Segawa A, Sano T, et al. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:1004–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:426–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 2011;24:48–57.
   Google Scholar