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

  •  Gastrointestinal Cancer
  •  Sarcomas
  •  Adjuvant Therapy
  •  Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy
  •  Melanoma/Skin Cancer
  •  Surgical Oncology
  •  Kidney Cancer
  •  Radiological Techniques and Scans

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

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

Articles with Grants

Examination of the Efficacy of Fulvestrant 500 mg Targeting Estrogen Receptor-Positive Postmenopausal Metastatic Breast Cancer: Prospective Observational Study (PerSeUS BC03 Study)
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
Clinical Features and Gene Mutations of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Patients in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
View More...