Journal Basic Info

  • Impact Factor: 2.709**
  • H-Index: 11 
  • ISSN: 2474-1663
  • DOI: 10.25107/2474-1663
**Impact Factor calculated based on Google Scholar Citations. Please contact us for any more details.

Major Scope

  •  Colon Cancer
  •  Kidney Cancer
  •  Endoscopy Methods
  •  General Oncology
  •  Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy
  •  Gastrointestinal Cancer
  •  Ovarian Cancer
  •  Haemato-Oncology

Abstract

Citation: Clin Oncol. 2016;1(1):1159.DOI: 10.25107/2474-1663.1159

Automatisation of the Gleason Score, The End of the Dilemma? A Proposal to Increase Consensus

J Varinot, H Alshehhe, A Furudoi, F Soussaline, M Soussaline, R Renard-Penna, P Mozer, O Cussenot and E Compérat


Department of Pathology, Hôpital La-Pitié Salpêtrière, UPMC Paris VI, France
Imstar, France
Department of Radiology, Hôpital La-Pitié Salpêtrière, UPMC Paris VI, France
Department of Urology, Hôpital La-Pitié Salpêtrière, UPMC Paris VI, France
CeRePP, UPMC Paris VI, France

*Correspondance to: E Comperat 

 PDF  Full Text Research Article | Open Access

Abstract:

Introduction: The updated Gleason score (GS) (WHO classification 2016) decreases interobserver variability, but discordance still exists. The aim was to apply an operator independent method by a computer system (IMSTAR) to give a GS via automated image analysis. Material and
Methods: Twenty-six prostate biopsies (PB) were evaluated by three pathologists. GS was reported, new slides of the same PB were double stained by immunofluorescence (Annexin-3, a marker of low GG and normal tissue, and p504s, a marker of Pca employed in routine) . The slides were scored using Pathfinder™ reader analyzer, for quantitative digital pathology automated scanning of the PB. Detection of different fluorescent signals allowed with a specific algorithm to give a GS by the computer.
Results: The interobserver consensus was 96%. When comparing pathologists and the computer analysis, we found a 100 % agreement in 13 cases (50%). In 8 (31%) cases, GS assigned by pathologists was lower than that assigned by the computer. In 5 cases (19%) pathologists attributed a higher GS than the computer. Discordance never exceeded 1 GG. Major discrepancy existed between the GS 6 and 7.
Conclusion: This study shows feasibility of GS standardization. Automated image analysis seems to be a promising operator independent technique to standardize GS and provide more homogeneous grading for PCa.

Keywords:

Prostate cancer; Gleason grade; prostate biopsy; Quantitative digital pathology

Cite the Article:

Varinot J, Alshehhe H, Furudoi A, Soussaline F, Soussaline M, RenardPenna R, et al. Automatisation of the Gleason Score, The End of the Dilemma? A Proposal to Increase Consensus. Clin Oncol. 2016;1: 1159.

Search Our Journal

Journal Indexed In

Articles in PubMed

Metastatic Retroperitoneal Paraganglioma: Case Report and Review of the Literature
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
LINGO-1 is a New Therapy Target and Biomarker for Ewing Sarcoma
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
View More...

Articles with Grants

Clinical and Morphological Heterogeneity of the Xp11.2 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
Primary Uveal Lymphoma: Report of Three Cases with Histopathology Proven
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
View More...