Web-grading-a tool to test personal grading of renal and prostate cancer.
cancer grading
prognostic value
training tool
variability
web based
Journal
APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0463
Titre abrégé: APMIS
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8803400
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
20
07
2023
accepted:
10
08
2023
medline:
6
9
2023
pubmed:
25
8
2023
entrez:
24
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Only a few pathologists have the opportunity to verify their personal grading through objective assessment. This study introduces a web-based grading platform to facilitate and validate the grading of renal cell carcinoma and prostate cancer. Two representative images of two clinically annotated cohorts of 100 cases each of prostate and renal cell carcinoma were used. Each participant was asked to grade a tumor series utilizing a three tiered grading system. Finally, a Kaplan-Meier curve was drawn, and the log-rank test was used for statistical testing of the p-value. The grading of 22 participants (68%) achieved prognostic significance. Further analysis highlighted that only two pathologists were able to reliably separate low- and high-grade tumors from intermediate grades. The limitations of this study are the low number of participants in each of the cohorts and the potential selection bias of the tumor images. This web-based grading portal facilitates the assessment of the validity of grading by individual pathologists. The observation that most participants can only successfully identify high- or low-grade tumors but cannot discriminate between more subtle intermediate grades does indicate that there is a need for the development of more formal training programs for tumor grading.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
528-535Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. APMIS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Societies for Pathology, Medical Microbiology and Immunology.
Références
Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403-410.
Boxberg M, Jesinghaus M, Dorfner C, Mogler C, Drecoll E, Warth A, et al. Tumour budding activity and cell nest size determine patient outcome in oral squamous cell carcinoma: proposal for an adjusted grading system. Histopathology. 2017;70:1125-1137.
Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-88.
Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Compérat E, Evans AJ, et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch. 2011;459:175-182.
Rakha EA, Aleskandarany MA, Toss MS, Mongan NP, ElSayed ME, Green AR, et al. Impact of breast cancer grade discordance on prediction of outcome. Histopathology. 2018;73:904-915.
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Berney DM, Bostwick DG, Cheville J, Comperat E, et al. Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading. Histopathology. 2018;73:8-18.
Fritzsche FR, Oelrich B, Johannsen M, Kristiansen I, Moch H, Jung K, et al. Claudin-1 protein expression is a prognostic marker of patient survival in renal cell carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:7035-7042.
Gerhardt J, Montani M, Wild P, Beer M, Huber F, Hermanns T, et al. FOXA1 promotes tumor progression in prostate cancer and represents a novel hallmark of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Am J Pathol. 2012;180:848-861.
Clements M, O'Connell D. Magree: implements the O'Connell-Dobson-Schouten estimators of agreement for multiple observers. R package version 1.0. 2016. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=magree Accessed 01.02.2019
Marcus R, Eric P, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976;63:655-660.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244-252.
Carriaga MT, Henson DE. The histologic grading of cancer. Cancer. 1995;75:406-421.
Damjanov I, Fan F, editors. Cancer grading manual. New York, USA: Springer; 2007. p. 1.
Rosai J, Ackerman LV. The pathology of tumors, part III: grading, staging & classification. CA Cancer J Clin. 1979;29:66-77.
Allsbrook WC, 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.
Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Compérat E, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2013;62:247-256.
Engers R. Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms. World J Urol. 2007;25:595-605.
Goodman M, Ward KC, Osunkoya AO, Datta MW, Luthringer D, Young AN, et al. Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in Gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2012;72:1389-1398.
Ozkan TA, Eruyar AT, Cebeci OO, Memik O, Ozcan L, Kuskonmaz I. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016;50:420-424.
Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer. 2000;89:1818-1823.
Egevad L, Cheville J, Evans AJ, Hörnblad J, Kench JG, Kristiansen G, et al. Pathology Imagebase-a reference image database for standardization of pathology. Histopathology. 2017;71:677-685.
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Leite KR, Efremov G, Furusato B, et al. The International Society of Urological Pathology Education web-a web-based system for training and testing of pathologists. Virchows Arch. 2019;474:577-584.
Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, Shiraishi T, Furusato M, Tsuzuki T, et al. Accuracy of Gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol. 2003;34:658-665.
Bova GS, Parmigiani G, Epstein JI, Wheeler T, Mucci NR, Rubin MA. Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:417-427.