Histopathological re-evaluations of biopsies in prostate cancer: a nationwide observational study

References

• NKR cijfers [Internet]. Utrecht: IKNL; [cited 2019 Dec 15]. Available from: https://www.iknl.nl/nkr-cijfers/
   Google Scholar
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr., Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, et al. Prostate needle biopsies: interobserver variation and clinical consequences of histopathological re-evaluation. APMIS. 2011;119(4–5):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Marcussen N, Berg KD, et al. Repeated biopsies in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance: clinical implications of interobserver variation in histopathological assessment. BJU Int. 2015;115(4):599–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozkan TA, Eruyar AT, Cebeci OO, et al. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(6):420–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancee M, Tikkinen KAO, de Reijke TM, et al. Guideline of guidelines: primary monotherapies for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(4):535–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas CW, Bainbridge TC, Thomson TA, et al. Clinical impact of second pathology opinion: a longitudinal study of central genitourinary pathology review before prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2007;6(2):135–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI. The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(1):126–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C, et al. International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th ed. Oxford (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan PF, Hays BJ. The kappa statistic for establishing interrater reliability in the secondary analysis of qualitative clinical data. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15(2):153–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kweldam CF, Nieboer D, Algaba F, et al. Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists. Histopathology. 2016;69(3):441–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2013;62(2):247–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoef EI, van Cappellen WA, Slotman JA, et al. Three-dimensional analysis reveals two major architectural subgroups of prostate cancer growth patterns. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(7):1032–1041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology. 2006;48(6):644–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch. 2011;459(2):175–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rider JR, Sandin F, Andren O, et al. Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(1):88–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camara-Lopes G, Marta GN, Leite ET, et al. Change in the risk stratification of prostate cancer after Slide Review by a uropathologist: the experience of a reference center for the treatment of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40(4):454–459. discussion 460–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(6):646–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wurzer JC, Al-Saleem TI, Hanlon AL, et al. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center: correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment. Cancer. 1998;83(4):753–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsbrook WC, Jr., Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):74–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renshaw AA, Schultz D, Cote K, et al. Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(8):1007–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2004;171(2 Pt 1):664–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coard KC, Freeman VL. Gleason grading of prostate cancer: level of concordance between pathologists at the University Hospital of the West Indies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(3):373–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyama T, Allsbrook WC, Jr., Kurokawa K, 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(8):1004–1010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sooriakumaran P, Lovell DP, Henderson A, et al. Gleason scoring varies among pathologists and this affects clinical risk in patients with prostate cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)). 2005;17(8):655–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths DF, Melia J, McWilliam LJ, et al. A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology. 2006;48(6):655–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1335–1338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veloso SG, Lima MF, Salles PG, et al. Interobserver agreement of Gleason score and modified Gleason score in needle biopsy and in surgical specimen of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33(5):639–646.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kishimoto R, Saika T, Bekku K, et al. The clinical impact of pathological review on selection the treatment modality for localized prostate cancer in candidates for brachytherapy monotherapy. World J Urol. 2012;30(3):375–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman M, Ward KC, Osunkoya AO, et al. Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2012;72(13):1389–1398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soga N, Yatabe Y, Kageyama T, et al. Review of bioptic gleason scores by central pathologist modifies the risk classification in prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2015;95(4):452–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol. 2004;22(4):295–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar