Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34522463›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2021

Diagnosis of "cribriform" prostatic adenocarcinoma: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations.

Rajal B Shah, Qi Cai, Manju Aron, Daniel M Berney, John C Cheville, Fang-Ming Deng, Jonathan Epstein, Samson W Fine, Elizabeth M Genega, Michelle S Hirsch and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Rajal B ShahDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, TX, USA.
Qi CaiDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, TX, USA.
Manju AronDepartment of Pathology, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniel M BerneyDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Bartshealth NHS Trust and Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London United Kingdom.
John C ChevilleDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN, USA.
Fang-Ming DengDepartment of Pathology, New York University Medical Center New York, NY, USA.
Jonathan EpsteinDepartment of Pathology, Urology, Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Baltimore, MD, USA.
Samson W FineDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY, USA.
Elizabeth M GenegaDepartment of Pathology, Tufts Medical Center Boston, MA, USA.
Michelle S HirschDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA.
Peter A HumphreyDepartment of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine New Haven, CT, USA.
Jennifer GordetskyDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN, USA.
Glen KristiansenInstitute of Pathology of The University Hospital Bonn Bonn, Germany.
Lakshmi P KunjuDepartment of Pathology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Cristina Magi-GalluzziDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL, USA.
Nilesh GuptaDepartment of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System Detroit, MI, USA.
George J NettoDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL, USA.
Adeboye O OsunkoyaDepartment of Pathology and Urology, Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta, GA, USA.
Brian D RobinsonDepartment of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY, USA.
Kiril TrpkovDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada.
Lawrence D TrueDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle, Washington, USA.
Patricia TroncosoDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Murali VarmaDepartment of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Thomas WheelerDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX, USA.
Sean R WilliamsonRobert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic Cleveland, OH, USA.
Angela WuDepartment of Pathology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ming ZhouDepartment of Pathology, Tufts Medical Center Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis of cribriform Gleason pattern 4 (CrP4) prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) is important due to its independent association with adverse clinical outcomes and as a growing body of evidence suggests that it impacts clinical decision making in PCa management. To identify reproducible features for diagnosis of CrP4, we assessed interobserver agreement among 27 experienced urologic pathologists of 60 digital images from 44 radical prostatectomies (RP) that represented a broad spectrum of potential CrP4. The following morphologic features were correlated with the consensus diagnosis (defined as 75% agreement) for each image: partial vs. transluminal glandular bridging, intraglandular stroma, <12 vs. ≥12 lumina, well vs. poorly formed lumina, mucin (mucinous fibroplasia, extravasation, or extracellular pool), size (compared to benign glands and number of lumina), number of attachments with gland border by tumor cells forming a "glomeruloid-like" pattern, a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland occupying <50% of glandular circumference, central nerve, dense (cell mass occupying >50% of luminal space) vs. loose, and regular vs. irregular contour. Interobserver reproducibility for the overall diagnostic agreement was fair (k=0.40). Large CrP4 had better agreement (k=0.49) compared to small CrP4 (k=0.40). Transluminal bridging, dense cellular proliferation, a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland occupying <50% of gland circumference, lack of intraglandular mucin, and lack of contact between the majority of intraglandular cells with stroma were significantly associated with consensus for CrP4. In contrast, partial bridging, majority of intraglandular cells in contact with stroma, mucinous fibroplasia, only one attachment to the gland border by tumor cells forming a "glomeruloid-like" pattern, and a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland accounting for >50% of the glandular circumference were associated with consensus against CrP4. In summary, we identified reproducible morphological features for and against CrP4 diagnosis, which could be used to refine and standardize the diagnostic criteria for CrP4.

Indexed as

consensuscribriformgleason gradegrade groupProstate adenocarcinomareproducibility

Identifiers

PMID34522463
PMCPMC8414383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.