Browsing by Author "Oxley, Jon"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future
    (Wiley, 2021-02) Egevad, Lars; Delahunt, Brett; Bostwick, David G.; Cheng, Liang; Evans, Andrew J.; Gianduzzo, Troy; Graefen, Markus; Hugosson, Jonas; Kench, James G.; Leite, Katia R.M.; Oxley, Jon; Sauter, Guido; Srigley, John R.; Stattin, Pär; Tsuzuki, Toyonori; Yaxley, John; Samaratunga, Hemamali; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Unexpectedly high variability in determining tumour extent in prostatic biopsies: implications for active surveillance
    (Wiley, 2025) Bernhardt, Marit; Weinhold, Leonie; Bremmer, Felix; Chan, Emily; Cheng, Liang; Collins, Katrina; Downes, Michelle; Greenland, Nancy; Hommerding, Oliver; Iczkowski, Kenneth A.; Jufe, Laura; Kreft, Tobias; van Leenders, Geert; Oxley, Jon; Perry-Keene, Joanna; Reis, Henning; Schmid, Matthias; Tsuzuki, Toyonori; Wobker, Sara; Wiliamson, Sean R.; Kweldam, Charlotte; Kristiansen, Glen; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine
    Aims: Tumour content in prostatic biopsies is an important indicator of prostate cancer volume and patient prognosis. Consequently, guidelines typically recommend reporting it as a percentage or linear length (mm). This study aimed to determine the current practices for reporting tumour content in prostatic biopsies and evaluated the consistency among pathologists in diagnosing 10 standard biopsy cases of prostate cancer to assess interobserver variability. Methods and results: A web-based survey gathered data on demographics, experience and attitudes regarding the reporting of prostate cancer and its extent in biopsies. Virtual microscopy allowed analysis of 10 biopsy cases, each consisting of a single slide of prostate cancer. Self-reports from 304 participants recruited via the International Society of Urological Pathology and the German Society of Pathology were analysed. Most participants (43.4%) reported tumour extent as percentage of the biopsy core, 37.6% reported percentages and mm and 18.3% reported mm exclusively. The methods used to determine percentages showed an unexpected spread of choices, leading to considerable variability in results. Additionally, 40.8% of participants took part in the practical segment of the survey. The reported measures of tumour extent confirmed a notable interobserver variability, which was significantly higher for reported percentages. Conclusion: A high rate of interobserver variability in reporting tumour content in prostatic biopsies was found. This matter is especially critical for patients who are candidates for active surveillance. Reporting absolute measures of tumour content has the advantage of lower variability in comparison to percentages.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Utility of Pathology Imagebase for Standardization of Prostate Cancer Grading
    (Wiley, 2018-07) Egevad, Lars; Delahunt, Brett; Berney, Dan M.; Bostwick, David G.; Cheville, John; Comperat, Eva; Evans, Andrew J.; Fine, Samson W.; Grignon, David J.; Humphrey, Peter A.; Hörnblad, Jonas; Iczkowski, Kenneth A.; Kench, James G.; Kristiansen, Glen; Leite, Katia R.M.; Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina; McKenney, Jesse; Oxley, Jon; Pan, Chin-Chen; Samaratunga, Hemamali; Srigley, John R.; Takahashi, Hiroyuki; True, Lawrence D.; Tsuzuki, Toyonori; van der Kwast, Theo; Varma, Murali; Zhou, Ming; Clements, Mark; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine
    Aims: Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading. Methods and results: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two-thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members are able to access a limited number of cases. Conclusions: It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified.