A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility

Griffiths, D. F. R., Melia, J., McWilliam, L. J., Ball, R .Y., Grigor, K., Harnden, P., Jarmulowicz, M., Montironi, R., Moseley, R., Waller, M., Moss, S. and Parkinson, M. C. (2006) A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology, 48 6: 655-692. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02394.x


Author Griffiths, D. F. R.
Melia, J.
McWilliam, L. J.
Ball, R .Y.
Grigor, K.
Harnden, P.
Jarmulowicz, M.
Montironi, R.
Moseley, R.
Waller, M.
Moss, S.
Parkinson, M. C.
Title A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility
Journal name Histopathology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0309-0167
1365-2559
Publication date 2006-05-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02394.x
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 48
Issue 6
Start page 655
End page 692
Total pages 38
Place of publication Oxford
Publisher Blackwell
Language eng
Subject 010402 Biostatistics
111706 Epidemiology
Abstract Aims: To test the effectiveness of a teaching resource (a decision tree with diagnostic criteria based on published literature) in improving the proficiency of Gleason grading of prostatic cancer by general pathologists. Methods: A decision tree with diagnostic criteria was developed by a panel of urological pathologists during a reproducibility study. Twenty-four general histopathologists tested this teaching resource. Twenty slides were selected to include a range of Gleason score groups 2–4, 5–6, 7 and 8–10. Interobserver agreement was studied before and after a presentation of the decision tree and criteria. The results were compared with those of the panel of urological pathologists. Results: Before the teaching session, 83% of readings agreed within ± 1 of the panel's consensus scores. Interobserver agreement was low (κ = 0.33) compared with that for the panel (κ = 0.62). After the presentation, 90% of readings agreed within ± 1 of the panel's consensus scores and interobserver agreement amongst the pathologists increased to κ = 0.41. Most improvement in agreement was seen for the Gleason score group 5–6. Conclusions: The lower level of agreement among general pathologists highlights the need to improve observer reproducibility. Improvement associated with a single training session is likely to be limited. Additional strategies include external quality assurance and second opinion within cancer networks.
Keyword Histology, Pathological
biopsy
education
grade
prostate carcinoma
reproducibility
Q-Index Code C1

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
Centre for Military and Veterans' Health Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 28 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 29 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 03 Apr 2009, 19:36:49 EST by Ms Karen Naughton on behalf of Centre for Australian Military & Veterans' Health