Histopathological re-evaluations of biopsies in prostate cancer: a nationwide observational study

BACKGROUND

Grading prostate biopsies has an important role in determining treatment strategy. Histopathological evaluations suffer from interobserver variability and therefore biopsies may be re-evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the extent of, characteristics associated with and clinical implications of prostate biopsy re-evaluations in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by biopsy between October 2015 and April 2016 identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. The proportion of re-evaluations was assessed and characteristics were compared between patients with and without biopsy re-evaluation. Interobserver concordance of ISUP grade and EAU prognostic risk classification was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Biopsy re-evaluation was performed in 172 (3.3%) of 5214 patients. Primary reason for re-evaluation in patients treated with curative intent was referral to another hospital. Most referred patients treated with curative intent (n = 1856) had no re-evaluation (93.0%, n = 1727). Patients with biopsy re-evaluation were younger and underwent more often prostatectomy compared to patients without re-evaluation. The disagreement rate for ISUP grade was 26.1% and interobserver concordance was substantial (κ-weighted = 0.74). Re-evaluation resulted in 21.1% (n = 14) of patients with localised PCa in a different prognostic risk group. More tumours were downgraded (57.1%) than upgraded (42.9%). Interobserver concordance was very good (κ _weighted = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Pathology review of prostate biopsies is infrequently requested by clinicians in the Netherlands but in a non-negligible minority of patients with localised PCa the pathology review led to a change in prognostic risk group which might impact their treatment.

Discrepancy in pathology reports upon second review of radical orchiectomy specimens for testicular germ cell tumors

INTRODUCTION

We sought to evaluate the discrepancies between primary pathology report and second pathology review of radical orchiectomy (RO) specimens.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of RO specimens from the Ontario Cancer Registry. All cases required both a primary pathology report and a second pathology review from another institution. Histopathological variables assessed included histological subtype and components of mixed germ cell tumor (GCT), pathological tumor (pT) stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), spermatic cord invasion, and surgical margin.

RESULTS

Between 1994 and 2015, 5048 ROs were performed with 2719 (53.9%) seminoma and 2029 (40.2%) non-seminoma. Of these, 519 (10.3%) received a second pathology review. There was concordance between primary pathology report and second pathology review in 326 (62.8%) cases. The most common discrepancies involved a change in pT stage (n=148, 28.5%), with upstaging in 83 (16%) and downstaging in 65 (12.5%) cases relative to the original pT stage. The second most common discrepancy regarded the reporting of LVI (n=121, 23.3%), with 62 (11.9%) reporting presence of LVI when the primary pathology report did not. Other discrepancies included a change in the histological subtype in 28 (5.4%) cases and spermatic cord margin status in five (9.6%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 10% of orchiectomy specimens underwent a second pathology review, with nearly 40% of reviews leading to a meaningful change in parameters. Such variation could lead to incorrect tumor staging, estimate of relapse risk, and inappropriate treatment decisions. Expert pathology review of RO specimens should be considered, as it has significant implications for decision-making.

Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens

The present study investigated the concordance between Gleason scores assigned to prostate biopsy specimens by outside pathologists and a urological pathology expert, and determined the risk of upgrading between opinion-matched Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 biopsy specimens and radical prostatectomy specimens. Between January 2012 and May 2018, 733 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients whose original biopsy specimens from outside hospitals were reviewed by a urological pathology expert Okayama University Hospital were included. Patients who had received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of upgrading among GGG 1 diagnoses. A total of 403 patients were included in the present study. Agreement in GGG between initial and second-opinion diagnoses was present in 256 cases (63.5%). Although opinion-matched cases improved concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy specimen GGG compared with single-opinion cases (initial, 35.2%; second-opinion, 36.5%; matched, 41.4%), 71% (56/79) of cases classified as GGG 1 were upgraded after prostatectomy. Multivariate analysis revealed that prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 score were significant predictors of upgrading (odds ratio, 1.10; P=0.01; and odds ratio, 1.88; P=0.03, respectively). In conclusion, the GGG concordance rate between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens was higher in opinion-matched cases; however, 71% of opinion-matched GGG1 cases were upgraded after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologists should propose treatment strategies or further biopsy rather than active surveillance for patients with GGG1 and a high PSAD and/or PI-RADS score.

The GP Score, a Simplified Formula (Bioptic Gleason Score Times Prostate Specific Antigen) as a Predictor for Biochemical Failure after Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer

Objectives

We used a new GP score (Gleason score multiplied by prostate-specific antigen) without the T stage as a predictive value for biochemical failure (BCF) after prostatectomy.

Materials and Methods

We assessed 459 prostate cancer patients who underwent prostatectomies at our institution. Three sub-groups were defined in terms of D'Amico classification risk (low, intermediate, and high) and Gleason score (low, < 50; intermediate, 50-100; and high GP score, > 100). Risk factors for BCF were evaluated by multivariate analysis with a Cox hazard model. A log-rank test was used to compare the BCF rate in the 2 groups.

Results

There was nosignificant difference in the non-BCF rate between the lowrisk and low GP score subgroups or the intermediate risk andintermediate GP score subgroups. In contrast, the non-BCFrate of the high GP score subgroup (42.1%) was significantlylower than that of the high-risk subgroup (66.1%, log-rankp = 0.008). Based on multivariate analysis, a high GP score(p = 0.001; HR 3.78; 95%CI 1.95-7.35) was a significant independent risk factor for BCF after prostatectomy.

Conclusion

The GP score, consisting of two absolute numbers, may be a valuable predictive factor for BCF after prostatectomy, especially in the high-risk failure group.

Assessment of Histological Remission in Ulcerative Colitis: Discrepancies Between Daily Practice and Expert Opinion

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Histological remission [HR] is a potential treatment target in ulcerative colitis [UC]. Limited 'real world' data are available on the reliability of histological scoring when assessing minimal histological inflammation. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of UC histological scores in colonic biopsies showing mucosal healing [MH] and limited histological inflammation, and to compare the 'daily practice' histological assessment with expert reviews by gastrointestinal [GI] pathologists.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-centre study. Colonic biopsies from UC patients with MH [Mayo score ≤ 1] were included. All biopsies assessed in daily practice were reassessed by three blinded GI pathologists using three histological scores (Geboes score [GS], Riley score [RS], Harpaz [Gupta] Index [HGI]) and a global visual scale [GVS]. We evaluated inter- and intra-observer variation between GI pathologists and correlations between scores including the initial histological assessment using Cronbach's alpha and Spearman rho analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 270 biopsies from 39 UC patients were included. The inter-observer concordance for all histological indexes was substantial to almost perfect [GS 0.84; HGI 0.61; GVS 0.74, RS 0.91]. Correlation between the RS and GS was almost perfect [R = 0.86], but we found no correlation between the primary histological assessment and reassessment by GI pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Current UC histological scores reliably assess limited histological inflammation in UC patients. The discrepancy between the initial histological assessment and the reassessment by dedicated GI pathologists suggests a gap between daily practice and academic expertise. This issue may limit the implementation of HR as a treatment target for UC in daily practice.

Automating the Determination of Prostate Cancer Risk Strata From Electronic Medical Records

Purpose

Risk stratification underlies system-wide efforts to promote the delivery of appropriate prostate cancer care. Although the elements of risk stratum are available in the electronic medical record, manual data collection is resource intensive. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility and accuracy of an automated data extraction method using natural language processing (NLP) to determine prostate cancer risk stratum.

Methods

Manually collected clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values from our prospective prostatectomy database were used to categorize patients as low, intermediate, or high risk by D'Amico risk classification. NLP algorithms were developed to automate the extraction of the same data points from the electronic medical record, and risk strata were recalculated. The ability of NLP to identify elements sufficient to calculate risk (recall) was calculated, and the accuracy of NLP was compared with that of manually collected data using the weighted Cohen's κ statistic.

Results

Of the 2,352 patients with available data who underwent prostatectomy from 2010 to 2014, NLP identified sufficient elements to calculate risk for 1,833 (recall, 78%). NLP had a 91% raw agreement with manual risk stratification (κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.93). The κ statistics for PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage extraction by NLP were 0.86, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively; 91.9% of extracted PSA values were within ± 1.0 ng/mL of the manually collected PSA levels.

Conclusion

NLP can achieve more than 90% accuracy on D'Amico risk stratification of localized prostate cancer, with adequate recall. This figure is comparable to other NLP tasks and illustrates the known trade off between recall and accuracy. Automating the collection of risk characteristics could be used to power real-time decision support tools and scale up quality measurement in cancer care.