Variation between specialist uropatholgists in reporting extraprostatic extension after radical prostatectomy
Bryant RJ., Schmitt AJ., Roberts ISD., Gill PS., Browning L., Brewster SF., Hamdy FC., Verrill C.
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.