A Comparison of Interobserver Reproducibility of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma in Japan and the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Gleason grading is now the sole prostatic carcinoma grading system recommended by the World Health Organization. It is imperative that there be good interobserver reproducibility within this system worldwide. To our knowledge, there are no studies, using the same specimens, that compare the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading in Japan and the United States. OBJECTIVE: To compare the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States using, in Japan, images from the identical biopsy glass slides that were originally graded in the United States. DESIGN: Microsopic images from 37 needle biopsies of prostatic carcinoma were placed on CD-ROM and distributed to 14 Japanese pathologists for grading. These 14 physicians included 8 general pathologists and 6 pathologists with a special interest in urologic pathology. The needle biopsies had been previously reviewed so that a consensus diagnosis could be formed by a panel of urologic pathologists in the United States and Canada. Interobserver agreement with the consensus diagnoses was calculated by determining the overall kappa coefficient for the Japanese pathologists and then compared to the interobserver agreement among American general pathologists who had previously graded identical needle biopsies from which the CD-ROM images had been taken. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement with the consensus diagnoses for the 4 Gleason grading groups (Gleason grades 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10) among the Japanese urologic pathologists in this series of cases was substantial (overall kappa = 0.68), and for the Japanese general pathologists, it was moderate (overall kappa = 0.49), similar to that reported in the earlier study of American general pathologists (overall kappa = 0.44). The major interobserver reproducibility problem for both Japanese and American general pathologists is undergrading. The major areas of undergrading are the underdiagnosis of Gleason scores 5-6 as Gleason scores 2-4, and the underdiagnosis of cribriform sheets and fragments of cribriform Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma as Gleason pattern 3. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver reproducibility of the Gleason grading for this collection of specimens was similar among Japanese and American general pathologists. The overall kappa values for these generalists of 0.44 and 0.49 are only in the moderate (0.41-0.60) range of interobserver agreement when compared to 0.68, substantial (0.61-0.80) agreement, for Japanese urologic pathologists. Educational efforts to improve Gleason grading have been shown to be effective and are clearly warranted.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».