摘要：Virtual microscopy (VM) holds promise to reduce subjectivity as well as intra- and inter-observer variability for the histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. We evaluated (i) the repeatability (intra-observer agreement) and reproducibility (inter-observer agreement) of the 2014 Gleason grading system and other selected features using standard light microscopy (LM) and an internally developed VM system, and (ii) the interchangeability of LM and VM. Two uro-pathologists reviewed 413 cores from 60 Swedish men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer 1998-2014. Reviewer 1 performed two reviews using both LM and VM. Reviewer 2 performed one review using both methods. The intra- and inter-observer agreement within and between LM and VM were assessed using Cohen's kappa and Bland and Altman's limits of agreement. We found good repeatability and reproducibility for both LM and VM, as well as interchangeability between LM and VM, for primary and secondary Gleason pattern, Gleason Grade Groups, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern and comedonecrosis but not for the percentage of Gleason pattern 4. Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of VM compared to LM. The repeatability and reproducibility of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was poor regardless of method used warranting further investigation and improvement before it is used in clinical practice.
其他摘要：Abstract Virtual microscopy (VM) holds promise to reduce subjectivity as well as intra- and inter-observer variability for the histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. We evaluated (i) the repeatability (intra-observer agreement) and reproducibility (inter-observer agreement) of the 2014 Gleason grading system and other selected features using standard light microscopy (LM) and an internally developed VM system, and (ii) the interchangeability of LM and VM. Two uro-pathologists reviewed 413 cores from 60 Swedish men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer 1998–2014. Reviewer 1 performed two reviews using both LM and VM. Reviewer 2 performed one review using both methods. The intra- and inter-observer agreement within and between LM and VM were assessed using Cohen’s kappa and Bland and Altman’s limits of agreement. We found good repeatability and reproducibility for both LM and VM, as well as interchangeability between LM and VM, for primary and secondary Gleason pattern, Gleason Grade Groups, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern and comedonecrosis but not for the percentage of Gleason pattern 4. Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of VM compared to LM. The repeatability and reproducibility of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was poor regardless of method used warranting further investigation and improvement before it is used in clinical practice.
