Top

Published in:

01-12-2007 | Review

Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms

Author: Rainer Engers

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2007

Abstract

Histopathologic tumor grading reflects the degree of differentiation of a given tumor and for most urological tumors grading is an important factor in predicting their biological aggressiveness. Consequently, the clinical management of tumor patients is often strongly influenced by the tumor grade, provided by pathologists. This implicates that an ideal grading system should not only be of high prognostic relevance, but also of high reproducibility among different pathologists. To this end individual histological grading systems have been developed for different tumor entities and even for a given tumor type several grading systems have been proposed. All of these grading systems possess an inherent degree of subjectivity and consequently, both intra- and interobserver variability exist. In this review, grading systems for the most frequent urological tumors (i.e. prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial tumors) are mentioned and data on the reproducibility and reliability of the most commonly used grading systems are summarized.

Hammond ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC, Grignon DJ, Page DL, Fielding LP, Bostwick D, Pajak TF (2000) College of American pathologists conference XXXV: solid tumor prognostic factors-which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. Cancer committee and conference participants. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:958–965PubMed

Cohen JA (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef

Brennan P, Silman A (1992) Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 304:1491–1494PubMed

Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128PubMed

Brawn PN, Ayala AG, Von Eschenbach AC, Hussey DH, Johnson DE (1982) Histologic grading study of prostate adenocarcinoma: the development of a new system and comparison with other methods—a preliminary study. Cancer 49:525–532PubMedCrossRef

Bocking A, Kiehn J, Heinzel-Wach M (1982) Combined histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 50:288–294PubMedCrossRef

Helpap B, Bocking A, Dhom G, Faul P, Kastendieck H, Leistenschneider W, Muller HA (1985) Classification, histological and cytological grading and assessment of regression grading in prostatic carcinomas. A recommendation of the pathologic-urological task force on prostatic carcinoma. Pathologe 6:3–7PubMed

Mostofi FK (1975) Grading of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep 59:111–117PubMed

10.

Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Sobin LH (1980) Histological typing of prostate tumours. In: International histological classification of tumours, No. 22. World Health Organization, Geneva

11.

Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook WC Jr, Bastacky S, Boccon-Gibod L, De Marzo AM, Egevad L, Furosato M, Hamper UM, Helpap B, Humphrey PA, Iczkowski KA, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Rubin MA, Sakr WA, Samaratunga H, Parkin DM (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (eds) World Health Organizaion classification of tumours. pathology and genetics: tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC, Lyon, France, pp 179–184

12.

Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J III (1967) The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol 97:331–337PubMed

13.

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64PubMed

14.

Mellinger GT (1977) Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res 61–72

15.

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242PubMedCrossRef

16.

Helpap B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449:622–627PubMedCrossRef

17.

Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1998) Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 51:525–529PubMedCrossRef

18.

Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR (1997) Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 157:559–562PubMedCrossRef

19.

Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr, Miller S, Spires SM, Banks ER (1994) Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:705–708PubMed

20.

Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI (1997) Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 21:566–576PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Luque RJ, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R (2006) Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch 448:111–118PubMedCrossRef

22.

Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G, Algaba F (2005) Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int 95:1146–1152PubMedCrossRef

23.

Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI (2005) Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 36:5–9PubMedCrossRef

24.

Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M (2001) The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int 88:716–721PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP Jr, Ross JS, Jennings TA, Nazeer T (2006) Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 67:379–383PubMedCrossRef

26.

Cintra ML, Billis A (1991) Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: intraobserver reproducibility of the Mostofi, Gleason and Bocking grading systems. Int Urol Nephrol 23:449–454PubMedCrossRef

27.

Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, Atilla MK, Kandemir B, Yildiz S (1996) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 28:73–77PubMedCrossRef

28.

Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, McWilliam LJ, Montironi R, Waller M, Moss S, Parkinson MC (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48:644–654PubMedCrossRef

29.

Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279PubMedCrossRef

30.

Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Jones EC, Reuter VE, Sakr W, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32:74–80PubMedCrossRef

31.

Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32:81–88PubMedCrossRef

32.

Oyama T, Allsbrook WC Jr, Kurokawa K, Matsuda H, Segawa A, Sano T, Suzuki K, Epstein JI (2005) A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med 129:1004–1010PubMed

33.

Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI (2000) 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 89:1818–1823PubMedCrossRef

34.

Egevad L (2001) Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 57:291–295PubMedCrossRef

35.

Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, Shiraishi T, Furusato M, Tsuzuki T, Matsuno Y, Sasano H (2003) Accuracy of gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol 34:658–665PubMedCrossRef

36.

Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L (2004) Interobserver reproducibility of modified Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 445:17–21PubMed

37.

Hand JR, Broders A (1932) Carcinoma of the kidney: the degree of malignancy in relation to factors bearing on prognosis. J Urol 28:199–216

38.

Goldstein NS (1997) The current state of renal cell carcinoma grading. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) and the American joint committee on cancer (AJCC). Cancer 80:977–980PubMedCrossRef

39.

Skinner DG, Colvin RB, Vermillion CD, Pfister RC, Leadbetter WF (1971) Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma. A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 28:1165–1177PubMedCrossRef

40.

Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663PubMedCrossRef

41.

Thoenes W, Storkel S, Rumpelt HJ (1986) Histopathology and classification of renal cell tumors (adenomas, oncocytomas and carcinomas). The basic cytological and histopathological elements and their use for diagnostics. Pathol Res Pract 181:125–143PubMed

42.

Medeiros LJ, Jones EC, Aizawa S, Aldape HC, Cheville JC, Goldstein NS, Lubensky IA, Ro J, Shanks J, Pacelli A, Jung SH (1997) Grading of renal cell carcinoma: workgroup No. 2. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Cancer 80:990–991PubMedCrossRef

43.

Storkel S, Thoenes W, Jacobi GH, Lippold R (1989) Prognostic parameters in renal cell carcinoma—a new approach. Eur Urol 16:416–422PubMed

44.

Lanigan D, Conroy R, Barry-Walsh C, Loftus B, Royston D, Leader M (1994) A comparative analysis of grading systems in renal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology 24:473–476PubMedCrossRef

45.

Lohse CM, Blute ML, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Cheville JC (2002) Comparison of standardized and nonstandardized nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma to predict outcome among 2,042 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 118:877–886PubMedCrossRef

46.

Delahunt B, Sika-Paotonu D, Bethwaite PB, McCredie MR, Martignoni G, Eble JN, Jordan TW (2007) Fuhrman grading is not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 31:957–960PubMedCrossRef

47.

Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Maffei N, Brunelli M, Novara G, Zanolla L, Pea M, Artibani W (2005) Original and reviewed nuclear grading according to the Fuhrman system: a multivariate analysis of 388 patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 103:68–75PubMedCrossRef

48.

Lang H, Lindner V, de Fromont M, Molinie V, Letourneux H, Meyer N, Martin M, Jacqmin D (2005) Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma: assessment of 241 patients with >15-year follow-up. Cancer 103:625–629PubMedCrossRef

49.

Al Aynati M, Chen V, Salama S, Shuhaibar H, Treleaven D, Vincic L (2003) Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127:593–596PubMed

50.

Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H (1973) Histological typing of urinary bladder tumors, vol 10. World Health Organization, Geneva

51.

Bergkvist A, Ljungqvist A, Moberger G (1965) Classification of bladder tumours based on the cellular pattern. Preliminary report of a clinical-pathological study of 300 cases with a minimum follow-up of eight years. Acta Chir Scand 130:371–378PubMed

52.

Murphy WM (1989) Diseases of the urinary bladder, urethra, ureters, and renal pelves. In: Murphy WM (ed) Urological pathology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 64–96

53.

Pauwels RP, Schapers RF, Smeets AW, Debruyne FM, Geraedts JP (1988) Grading in superficial bladder cancer. (1). Morphological criteria. Br J Urol 61:129–134PubMed

54.

Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK (1998) The World Health Organization/international society of urological pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder consensus conference committee. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1435–1448PubMedCrossRef

55.

MacLennan GT, Kirkali Z, Cheng L (2007) Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms. Eur Urol 51:889–897PubMedCrossRef

56.

Gönül II, Poyraz A, Ünsal C, Acar C, Alkibay T (2007) Comparison of 1998 WHO/ISUP and 1973 WHO classifications for interobserver variability in grading of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the bladder. Pathological evaluation of 258 Cases. Urol Int 78:338–344PubMedCrossRef

57.

Jordan AM, Weingarten J, Murphy WM (1987) Transitional cell neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Can biologic potential be predicted from histologic grading? Cancer 60:2766–2774PubMedCrossRef

58.

Lipponen PK (1992) Histological and quantitative prognostic factors in transitional cell bladder cancer treated by cystectomy. Anticancer Res 12:1527–1532PubMed

59.

Ooms EC, Anderson WA, Alons CL, Boon ME, Veldhuizen RW (1983) Analysis of the performance of pathologists in the grading of bladder tumors. Hum Pathol 14:140–143PubMedCrossRef

60.

Tosoni I, Wagner U, Sauter G, Egloff M, Knonagel H, Alund G, Bannwart F, Mihatsch MJ, Gasser TC, Maurer R (2000) Clinical significance of interobserver differences in the staging and grading of superficial bladder cancer. BJU Int 85:48–53PubMedCrossRef

61.

Robertson AJ, Beck JS, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lee FD, Lessells AM, Mclaren KM, Moss SM, Simpson JG, Smith GD (1990) Observer variability in histopathological reporting of transitional cell carcinoma and epithelial dysplasia in bladders. J Clin Pathol 43:17–21PubMedCrossRef

62.

Samaratunga H, Makarov DV, Epstein JI (2002) Comparison of WHO/ISUP and WHO classification of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms for risk of progression. Urology 60:315–319PubMedCrossRef

63.

Whisnant RE, Bastacky SI, Ohori NP (2003) Cytologic diagnosis of low-grade papillary urothelial neoplasms (low malignant potential and low-grade carcinoma) in the context of the 1998 WHO/ISUP classification. Diagn Cytopathol 28:186–190PubMedCrossRef

64.

Bircan S, Candir O, Serel TA (2004) Comparison of WHO 1973, WHO/ISUP 1998, WHO 1999 grade and combined scoring systems in evaluation of bladder carcinoma. Urol Int 73:201–208PubMedCrossRef

65.

Yin H, Leong AS (2004) Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial tumors: validation of the 1998 WHO/ISUP system by immunophenotyping and follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 121:679–687PubMedCrossRef

66.

Curry JL, Wojcik EM (2002) The effects of the current World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathologists bladder neoplasm classification system on urine cytology results. Cancer 96:140–145PubMedCrossRef

67.

Murphy WM, Takezawa K, Maruniak NA (2002) Interobserver discrepancy using the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of urothelial neoplasms: practical choices for patient care. J Urol 168:968–972PubMedCrossRef

68.

Campbell PA, Conrad RJ, Campbell CM, Nicol DL, MacTaggart P (2004) Papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential: reliability of diagnosis and outcome. BJU Int 93:1228–1231PubMedCrossRef

69.

Yorukoglu K, Tuna B, Dikicioglu E, Duzcan E, Isisag A, Sen S, Mungan U, Kirkali Z (2003) Reproducibility of the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Virchows Arch 443:734–740PubMedCrossRef

70.

Cheng L, Neumann RM, Bostwick DG (1999) Papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential. Clinical and biologic implications. Cancer 86:2102–2108PubMedCrossRef

71.

Holmang S, Andius P, Hedelin H, Wester K, Busch C, Johansson SL (2001) Stage progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors: relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J Urol 165:1124–1128PubMedCrossRef

72.

Holmang S, Hedelin H, Anderstrom C, Holmberg E, Busch C, Johansson SL (1999) Recurrence and progression in low grade papillary urothelial tumors. J Urol 162:702–707PubMedCrossRef

73.

Pich A, Chiusa L, Formiconi A, Galliano D, Bortolin P, Comino A, Navone R (2002) Proliferative activity is the most significant predictor of recurrence in noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential and grade 1 papillary carcinomas of the bladder. Cancer 95:784–790PubMedCrossRef

74.

Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Koga F, Nemoto T, Kihara K (2003) Long-term outcome of bladder papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential. BJU Int 92:559–562PubMedCrossRef

75.

Bain GO, Koch M, Hanson J (1982) Feasibility of grading carcinomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106:265–267

76.

Svanholm H, Mygind H (1985) Prostatic carcinoma reproducibility of histologic grading. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A] 93:67–71

77.

ten Kate FJW, Gallee MPW, Schmitz PIM, Joebis AC, van der Heul RO, Prins MEF, Blom JHM (1986) Problems in grading of prostatic carcinoma: interobserver reproducibility of five different grading systems. World J Urol 4:147–152CrossRef

78.

Rousselet MC, Saint-Andre JP, Six P, Soret JY (1986) Reproducibility and prognostic value of Gleason's and Gaeta's histological grades in prostatic carcinoma. Ann Urol (Paris) 20:317–322

79.

de las Morenas A, Siroky MB, Merriam J, Stilmant MM (1988) Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. Hum Pathol 19:595–597PubMedCrossRef

80.

di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S, Kim DH, Dytch HE, Galera-Davidson H, Bibbo M (1991) Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 96:70–75PubMed

81.

McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y (1997) Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 9:222–225

82.

Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lang S, Lee FD, McLaren KM, Nairn ER, Ogston SA, Robertson AJ, Simpson JG, Smith GD, Tavadia HB, Walker F (1997) Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum Pathol 28:646–649PubMedCrossRef

83.

Bova GS, Parmigiani G, Epstein JI, Wheeler T, Mucci NR, Rubin MA (2001) Web-based tissue microarray image data analysis: initial validation testing through prostate cancer Gleason grading. Hum Pathol 32:417–427PubMedCrossRef

84.

De La TA, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher E, De Fromont M, Fondimare A, Molinie V, Piron D, Sibony M, Staroz F, Triller M, Peltier E, Thiounn N, Rubin MA (2003) Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol 34:444–449CrossRef

85.

Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M, Sault MC, Rampal M, Coulange C (1995) Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 76:2543–2549PubMedCrossRef

86.

Abel PD, Henderson D, Bennett MK, Hall RR, Williams G (1988) Differing interpretations by pathologists of the pT category and grade of transitional cell cancer of the bladder. Br J Urol 62:339–342PubMed

Title: Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms
Author: Rainer Engers
Publication date: 01-12-2007
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2007
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0209-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2007

Safety and efficacy of tolterodine extended release in men with overactive bladder symptoms and presumed non-obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia

Comparison of prolonged warm and cold ischemia on the solitary kidney during partial nephrectomy in a rabbit model

Key clinical issues in renal cancer: a challenge for proteomics

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Targeting EGFR in bladder cancer

Subcutaneous tunneling of the temporary testing electrode significantly improves the success rate of subchronic sacral nerve modulation (SNM)

A prospective randomized comparative study on the use of ventral subcutaneous flap to prevent fistulas in the Snodgrass repair for distal hypospadias