Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

AbstractAimsExtraprostatic extension of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens significantly affects patient management. We evaluated the degree of interobserver variation between uropathologists at a tertiary referral teaching hospital in assessing the extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens.MethodsHistopathological data from a consecutive series of 293 radical prostatectomy specimens (January 2007–December 2012) were reviewed. A subset of 50 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases originally staged as tumours confined to the prostate (pT2) or tumours extending into periprostatic tissue (pT3a) during this period were reviewed by four specialist uropathologists.ResultsFive consultant histopathologists reported these specimens with significant differences in the reported stage (p=0.0164) between pathologists. Double-blind review by 4 uropathologists of 50 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases showed a lack of consensus in 16/50 (32%) cases (κ score 0.58, moderate agreement). A consensus meeting was held, but consensus could still not be reached in 9/16 cases.ConclusionsOur findings highlight variability in the reporting of pT stage in radical prostatectomy specimens even by specialist uropathologists. Assessment of extraprostatic extension has important implications for patient management and there is a need for more precise guidance.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of Clinical Pathology



Publication Date





465 - 472