Inter-observer reproducibility before and after web-based education in the Gleason grading of the prostate adenocarcinoma among the Iranian pathologists.

  • Alireza Abdollahi Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Sara Sheikhbahaei Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Alipasha Meysamie Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Mohammadreza Bakhshandeh Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Hasan Hosseinzadeh Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Inter-observer reproducibility, Gleason grading, Prostate adenocarcinoma, Pathologist

Abstract

This study was aimed at determining intra and inter-observer concordance rates in the Gleason scoring of prostatic adenocarcinoma, before and after a web-based educational course. In this self-controlled study, 150 tissue samples of prostatic adenocarcinoma are re-examined to be scored according to the Gleason scoring system. Then all pathologists attend a free web-based course. Afterwards, the same 150 samples [with different codes compared to the previous ones] are distributed differently among the pathologists to be assigned Gleason scores. After gathering the data, the concordance rate in the first and second reports of pathologists is determined. In the pre web-education, the mean kappa value of Interobserver agreement was 0.25 [fair agreement]. Post web-education significantly improved with the mean kappa value of 0.52 [moderate agreement]. Using weighted kappa values, significant improvement was observed in inter-observer agreement in higher scores of Gleason grade; Score 10 was achieved for the mean kappa value in post web-education was 0.68 [substantial agreement] compared to 0.25 (fair agreement) in pre web-education. Web-based training courses are attractive to pathologists as they do not need to spend much time and money. Therefore, such training courses are strongly recommended for significant pathological issues including the grading of the prostate adenocarcinoma. Through web-based education, pathologists can exchange views and contribute to the rise in the level of reproducibility. Such programs need to be included in post-graduation programs.

References

Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading ofprostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008;180(2):548-52

Bostwick, DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18(8):796-803.

Vira MA, Tomaszewski JE, Hwang WT, et al. Impact of the percentage of positive biopsy cores on the further stratification of primary grade 3 and grade 4 Gleason score

tumors in radical prostatectomy patients. Urology 2005;66(5):1015-9.

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. 1974. J Urol 2002;167(2 Pt2):953-8.

Oyama T, Allsbrook WC Jr, Kurokawa K, et al. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129(8):1004-10.

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111(1):58-64.

Damico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, et al. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45(4):841-6.

Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 2006;48(6):644-54.

Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Clinical implications of changing definitions within the Gleason grading system. Nat Rev Urol 2010;7(3):136-42.

Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992;304(6840);1491-4.

Oz Damar so, Sarrikaya S, Yildiz L, et al. Intraobserver and Interobserver Reproducibility of WHO and Gleason Histologic Grading System in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol1996;28(1):73-7.

Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001;32(1):81-8.

Mulay K, Swain S, Jaimn S, et al. Gleason Scoring of Prostatic Carcinoma: impact of a web-based tutorial on inter-and intra-observer variability. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2008;51(1):22-5.

Erickson RA, Chang A, Johnson CE, et al. Lecture versus web tutorial for pharmacy students learning of MDI technique. Ann Pharmacother 2003;37(4):500-5.

Barnes K, Itzkowitz S, Brown K. Teaching clinical management skills for genetic testing of hereditary nonpolyposis. Genet Med 2003;5(1):43-8.

Li Y, Brodlie K. Phillips N. Web-based VR training simulator for percutaneous rhizotomy. Stud Heath Technol Inform 2000;70(1):175-81.

How to Cite
1.
Abdollahi A, Sheikhbahaei S, Meysamie A, Bakhshandeh M, Hosseinzadeh H. Inter-observer reproducibility before and after web-based education in the Gleason grading of the prostate adenocarcinoma among the Iranian pathologists. Acta Med Iran. 52(5):370-374.
Section
Articles