Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38581590›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Expected impact of MRI-targeted biopsy interreader variability among uropathologists on ProScreen prostate cancer screening trial: a pre-trial validation study.

Ronja Hietikko, Tuomas Mirtti, Tuomas P Kilpeläinen, Teemu Tolonen, Anne Räisänen-Sokolowski, Stig Nordling, Jill Hannus, Marita Laurila, Kimmo Taari, Teuvo L J Tammela and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Ronja HietikkoDepartment of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. Ronja.hietikko@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8673-8337
Tuomas MirttiResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tuomas P KilpeläinenDepartment of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Teemu TolonenFimlab Laboratories, Department of Pathology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Anne Räisänen-SokolowskiHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Pathology, HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Stig NordlingDepartment of Pathology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jill HannusFimlab Laboratories, Department of Pathology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Marita LaurilaFimlab Laboratories, Department of Pathology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Kimmo TaariDepartment of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Teuvo L J TammelaDepartment of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Reija AutioFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Kari NatunenFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Anssi AuvinenFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Antti RannikkoDepartment of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProstate cancer (PCa) histology, particularly the Gleason score, is an independent prognostic predictor in PCa. Little is known about the inter-reader variability in grading of targeted prostate biopsy based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to assess inter-reader variability in Gleason grading of MRI-targeted biopsy among uropathologists and its potential impact on a population-based randomized PCa screening trial (ProScreen).

methodsFrom June 2014 to May 2018, 100 men with clinically suspected PCa were retrospectively selected. All men underwent prostate MRI and 86 underwent targeted prostate of the prostate. Six pathologists individually reviewed the pathology slides of the prostate biopsies. The five-tier ISUP (The International Society of Urological Pathology) grade grouping (GG) system was used. Fleiss' weighted kappa (κ) and Model-based kappa for associations were computed to estimate the combined agreement between individual pathologists.

resultsGG reporting of targeted prostate was highly consistent among the trial pathologists. Inter-reader agreement for cancer (GG1-5) vs. benign was excellent (Model-based kappa 0.90, Fleiss' kappa κ = 0.90) and for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (GG2-5 vs. GG0 vs. GG1), it was good (Model-based kappa 0.70, Fleiss' kappa κ 0.67).

conclusionsInter-reader agreement in grading of MRI-targeted biopsy was good to excellent, while it was fair to moderate for MRI in the same cohort, as previously shown. Importantly, there was wide consensus by pathologists in assigning the contemporary GG on MRI-targeted biopsy suggesting high reproducibility of pathology reporting in the ProScreen trial.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsBiopsyEarly Detection of CancerHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingProstate-Specific AntigenReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenAgreementGradingInterobserverKappaPathology

Identifiers

PMID38581590
PMCPMC10998811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.