Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies

被引:0
作者
Lars Egevad
Brett Delahunt
Hemamali Samaratunga
Toyonori Tsuzuki
Henrik Olsson
Peter Ström
Cecilia Lindskog
Tomi Häkkinen
Kimmo Kartasalo
Martin Eklund
Pekka Ruusuvuori
机构
[1] Karolinska Institutet,Department of Oncology and Pathology
[2] Karolinska University Hospital,Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences
[3] University of Otago,Department of Surgical Pathology
[4] Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland,Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics
[5] Aichi Medical University,Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology
[6] School of Medicine,Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology
[7] Karolinska Institutet,Tays Cancer Center
[8] Uppsala University,Institute of Biomedicine
[9] Tampere University,undefined
[10] Tampere University Hospital,undefined
[11] University of Turku,undefined
来源
Virchows Archiv | 2021年 / 478卷
关键词
Pathology; Reproducibility; Perineural invasion; Prostate cancer;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Numerous studies have shown a correlation between perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate biopsies and outcome. The reporting of PNI varies widely in the literature. While the interobserver variability of prostate cancer grading has been studied extensively, less is known regarding the reproducibility of PNI. A total of 212 biopsy cores from a population-based screening trial were included in this study (106 with and 106 without PNI according to the original pathology reports). The glass slides were scanned and circulated among four pathologists with a special interest in urological pathology for assessment of PNI. Discordant cases were stained by immunohistochemistry for S-100 protein. PNI was diagnosed by all four observers in 34.0% of cases, while 41.5% were considered to be negative for PNI. In 24.5% of cases, there was a disagreement between the observers. The kappa for interobserver variability was 0.67–0.75 (mean 0.73). The observations from one participant were compared with data from the original reports, and a kappa for intraobserver variability of 0.87 was achieved. Based on immunohistochemical findings among discordant cases, 88.6% had PNI while 11.4% did not. The most common diagnostic pitfall was the presence of bundles of stroma or smooth muscle. It was noted in a few cases that collagenous micronodules could be mistaken for a nerve. The distance between cancer and nerve was another cause of disagreement. Although the results suggest that the reproducibility of PNI may be greater than that of prostate cancer grading, there is still a need for improvement and standardization.
引用
收藏
页码:1109 / 1116
页数:7
相关论文
共 185 条
  • [1] Wu S(2019)Impact of biopsy perineural invasion on the outcomes of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Scand J Urol 53 287-294
  • [2] Lin X(2018)Perineural invasion as an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Urol 18 5-1789
  • [3] Lin SX(2015)Perineural invasion in prostate biopsy specimens is associated with increased bone metastasis in prostate cancer Prostate 75 1783-357
  • [4] Lu M(2013)Evidence of perineural invasion on prostate biopsy specimen and survival after radical prostatectomy Urology 81 354-e367
  • [5] Deng T(2011)Perineural invasion predicts increased recurrence, metastasis, and death from prostate cancer following treatment with dose-escalated radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81 e361-20562
  • [6] Wang Z(2018)Should reporting of peri-neural invasion and extra prostatic extension be mandatory in prostate cancer biopsies? Correlation with outcome in biopsy cases treated conservatively Oncotarget 9 20555-20
  • [7] Olumi AF(2019)Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy and transurethral resection and enucleation specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) Pathology 51 11-256
  • [8] Dahl DM(2013)Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists Histopathology 62 247-18
  • [9] Wang D(2018)Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading Histopathology 73 8-667
  • [10] Blute ML(2004)Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies J Urol 171 664-654