Interobserver variation in grading and staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in relation to the clinical outcome.

Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold Heller Str. 7, D-24105 Kiel, Germany.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 03/2009; 103(12):1660-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08362.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine interobserver variations in assessing grade and stage of penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
We retrospectively reviewed the pathological features and clinical outcome in 75 patients with SCC of the penis, who were treated in participating urological centres between 1996 and 2005; the assessments of the local pathologists and the review pathologists were compared.
There was conformity in tumour grade in 67% and the assessment of tumour stage conformed in 84%; the combination assessment of both grade and stage conformed in 56%.
Accurate histological subtyping by the surgical pathologist demands standardized guidelines, in particular for histological grading, which is crucial for clinical treatment, but shows significant interobserver variation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since reliable molecular prognostic parameters for inguinal lymph metastases in penile cancer are not available, tumor grading is often used as a surrogate prognostic tool for the indication of inguinal lymphadenctomy and has been integrated into the current TNM classification for penile cancer. The reliability of tumor grading is under discussion. We examined interobserver grading variability in 90 primary penile carcinomas, assessed by 12 different uropathologists from five European countries. Tumor grading, following the CAP scheme, was compared, and interobserver variability was calculated using kappa statistics. The interobserver variability was high as reflected by an overall low kappa coefficient (mean k = 0.34) and reached a moderate level only in 26.4 % of the cases (range 0.02-0.67). The percentage of G1 tumors assigned ranged from 8.6 to 52.5 %, G2 tumors from 27.1 to 72.6 % and G3 tumors from 11.7 to 48.7 %. Only some observers assigned G4 with a range of 0.6-21.9 %. Subdivision into low and high grade according to UICC and EAU classifications differed significantly (P < 0.001). Low reproducibility of grading in penile carcinomas with the favored method does not allow a reliable prognostication of tumor aggressiveness. Inclusion of histological grading into the TNM classification currently seems not to be a benefit.
    Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin 02/2014; 464(4). · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hintergrund Die Vereinigung europäischer Urologen empfiehlt in ihren aktuellen Leitlinien für das Lymphknotenstaging des Peniskarzinoms bei nicht palpablen Leistenlymphknoten die dynamische Lymphknotenbiopsie („dynamic sentinel node biopsy“, DSNB) als diagnostische Methode der ersten Wahl. Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Zuverlässigkeit der DSNB zu überprüfen. Material und Methoden Die DSNB wurde zwischen 2004 und 2012 in allen Patienten mit einem invasiven Peniskarzinom und nicht palpablen Leistenlymphknoten angewendet. Als Merkmal der Zuverlässigkeit wurde die Falsch-negativ-Rate bestimmt. Daneben wurden Komplikationen dokumentiert. Die Ergebnisse wurden prospektiv erfasst. Ergebnisse Eine DSNB wurde bei insgesamt 29 Patienten mit palpatorisch unauffälligen Leistenlymphknoten durchgeführt. Bei 2 Patienten wurden Metastasen mit Hilfe der DSNB nachgewiesen, ein Patient entwickelte einen Lymphknotenbefall nach negativer DSNB. Somit ergibt sich eine Falsch-negativ-Rate von 3,70 %. Die Morbiditätsrate lag bei 3,45 %. Schlussfolgerung Die Sentinel-Lymphknotenbiopsie ist eine zuverlässige diagnostische Methode. Die hohen methodischen wie auch logistischen Anforderungen legen nahe, dass sie nur in ausgewählten Zentren durchgeführt werden sollte.
    Der Urologe 10/2013; · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIMS: Pathological staging in penectomies may be difficult due to the anatomical complexity of penile anatomy, and may be additionally challenging due to the low volume at most institutions. Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of whole-mount processing for penectomy specimens. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 7-year retrospective search for partial or radical penectomies identified 55 specimens, which were processed routinely (n = 31) from 2006 to 2009 and whole-mounted (n = 24) from 2010 to 2012. Routine cases used more slides per case compared to whole mounts (mean 10.4 versus 7.2). Recuts occurred more often in routine cases (12.9% versus 0%). More routine cases had additional blocks grossed (19.4% versus 4.2%). Upon review, five discrepancies that impacted pT staging were identified in the routine group, with none in the whole-mount group. The average estimated additional cost for each whole-mount case compared to routine processing was $40.74, with an increased turnaround time of 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: Whole-mounting is a feasible technique for penectomy that can be utilized with minimal increased cost and turnaround time, and may improve staging. Institutions in which whole-mounting is already established for other organs, such as prostate, may wish to consider utilizing this format for penectomy specimens.
    Histopathology 03/2013; 63(1). · 3.30 Impact Factor