首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Urology >Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens.
【24h】

Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens.

机译:前列腺癌根治术标本的局部和中央病理学检查之间的差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: Pathological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens has not been uniform among pathologists. We investigated interobserver variability of radical prostatectomy specimen reviews between local and central pathologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collated data from 50 institutions on 2,015 patients with cT1c-3 prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1997 and 2005. All radical prostatectomy specimens were retrospectively reevaluated by a central uropathologist. Gleason score, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, positive surgical margin, year of diagnosis and pathology volume were recorded. RESULTS: The exact concordance rate of Gleason score between local and central review was 54.8%, and under grading and over grading rates at local review were 25.9% and 19.2%, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was 0.61 for local and central radical prostatectomy Gleason score. The exact concordance rate of Gleason score 8-10 at local review was significantly lower than that of Gleason score 5-6, 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 at local review (p = 0.011, <0.001 and 0.006). Exact concordance rates between local and central review for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement and positive surgical margin were 82.5%, 97.6%, 99.6% and 87.5%, respectively. High volume institutions and recently diagnosed cohorts showed significantly higher exact concordance rates between local and central review for radical prostatectomy Gleason score and other pathological features (all p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High volume institutions and recent series show higher concordance between local and central review of radical prostatectomy pathology. However, concordance for high grade Gleason score, extracapsular extension and surgical margin status remains poor. Radical prostatectomy specimens should be reevaluated in a multi-institutional study for more accurate pathological data.
机译:目的:前列腺癌根治术标本的病理评估在病理学家之间并不统一。我们调查了局部和中央病理学家之间前列腺癌根治术标本的观察者间差异。材料与方法:我们收集了来自50个机构的数据,这些数据涉及1997年至2005年间行根治性前列腺切除术的2,015例cT1c-3前列腺癌患者。所有根治性前列腺切除术的标本均由一名中央泌尿外科医师进行了回顾性重新评估。记录格里森评分,囊外延伸,精囊侵犯,淋巴结受累,手术切缘阳性,诊断年份和病理学量。结果:局部评价和中央评价之间的格里森评分的准确一致性率为54.8%,而局部评价的分级不及格和分级不完全率分别为25.9%和19.2%。对于局部和中央根治性前列腺切除术的格里森评分,Spearman等级相关系数为0.61。本地评价的Gleason评分8-10的准确一致性率显着低于本地评价的Gleason评分5-6、3 + 4和4 + 3(p = 0.011,<0.001和0.006)。局部和中央检查对囊外延伸,精囊浸润,淋巴结受累和手术切缘阳性的准确一致率分别为82.5%,97.6%,99.6%和87.5%。大量机构和最近诊断出的队列研究显示,根治性前列腺切除术格里森评分与其他病理学特征的局部和中央评价之间的确切一致率显着更高(所有p <0.001)。结论:大量的机构和最近的系列显示根治性前列腺切除术病理的本地和中央审查之间更高的一致性。然而,高格里森评分,囊外延伸和手术切缘状态的一致性仍然很差。根治性前列腺切除术标本应在多机构研究中重新评估以获得更准确的病理数据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号