A grading dilemma; Gleason scoring system: Are we sufficiently compatible? A multi center study

Yelda Dere; Özgür Ilhan Çelik; Serkan Yasar Çelik; Sümeyye Ekmekçi; Gözde Evcim; Fatma Pehlivan; Anıl Ağalar; Hasan Deliktaş; Nil Çulhacı

doi:10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_288_18

Home

About us

Instructions

Submission

Advertise

Contact

e-Alerts

Ahead Of Print

Users Online: 254

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2020 | Volume : 63 | Issue : 5 | Page : 25-29

A grading dilemma; Gleason scoring system: Are we sufficiently compatible? A multi center study

Yelda Dere¹, Özgür Ilhan Çelik¹, Serkan Yasar Çelik¹, Sümeyye Ekmekçi², Gözde Evcim³, Fatma Pehlivan⁴, Anıl Ağalar⁵, Hasan Deliktaş⁶, Nil Çulhacı⁷
¹ Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Izmir, Turkey
² Department of Pathology, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
³ Department of Pathology, Çiğli Region Education Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
⁴ Department of Pathology, Tinaztepe Special Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
⁵ Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, 9 Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
⁶ Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Muğla, Turkey
⁷ Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Yelda Dere
Department of Pathology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla
Turkey

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Check

DOI: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_288_18

Objective: Gleason scoring is the grading system which strongly predicts the prognosis of prostate cancer. However, even being one of the most commonly used systems, the presence of different interobserver agreement rates push the uropathologists update the definitons of the Gleason patterns. In this study, we aimed to determine the interobserver agreement variability among 7 general pathologists, and one expert uropathologist from 6 different centers. Methods: A set of 50 Hematoxylin & Eosin stained slides from 41 patients diagnosed as prostate cancer were revised by 8 different pathologists. The pathologists were also grouped according to having their residency at the same institute or working at the same center. All pathologists' and the subgroups' Gleason scores were then compared for interobserver variability by Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa tests using R v3.2.4. Results: There were about 8 pathologists from 6 different centers revised all the slides. One of them was an expert uropathologist with experience of 18 years. Among 7 general pathologists 4 had surgical pathology experience for over 5 years whilst 3 had under 5 years. The Fleiss' kappa was found as 0.54 for primary Gleason pattern, and 0.44 for total Gleason score (moderate agreement). The Fleiss' kappa was 0.45 for grade grouping system. Conclusion: Assigning a Gleason score for a patient can be problematic because of different interobserver agreement rates among pathologists even though the patterns were accepted as well-defined.

[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*

Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED

Search Pubmed for

Search in Google Scholar for

Related articles

Citation Manager

Access Statistics

Reader Comments

Email Alert *

Add to My List *

* Requires registration (Free)

Article Access Statistics

Viewed	3596

Printed	81

Emailed	0

PDF Downloaded	175

Comments	[Add]

Cited by others	3