Article Text
Abstract
Aims Prostate cancer (PCa) grading is an important prognostic parameter, but is subject to considerable observer variation. Previous studies have shown that interobserver variability decreases after participants were trained using an e-learning module. However, since the publication of these studies, grading of PCa has been enhanced by adopting the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2014 grading classification. This study investigates the effect of training on interobserver variability of PCa grading, using the ISUP Education web e-learning on Gleason grading.
Methods The ISUP Education Prostate Test B Module was distributed among Dutch pathologists. The module uses images graded by the ISUP consensus panel consisting of 24 expert uropathologists. Participants graded the same 10 images before and after e-learning. We included those who completed the tests before and after training. We evaluated variation in PCa grading in a fully crossed study design, using linearly weighted kappa values for each pathologist, comparing them to other pathologists and to the ISUP consensus panel. We analysed the improvement in median weighted kappas before and after training, using Wilcoxon’s signed rank-test.
Results We included 42 pathologists. Inter-rater reliability between pathologists improved from 0.70 before training to 0.74 after training (p=0.01). When compared with the ISUP consensus panel, five pathologists improved significantly, whereas the kappa of one pathologist was significantly lower after training. All pathologists who improved significantly, graded with less than substantial agreement before training.
Conclusions ISUP Prostate Test B e-learning reduces variability in PCa grading. E-learning is a cost-effective method for standardisation of pathology.
- EDUCATION
- PROSTATE
- Education, Medical
- Urologic Neoplasms
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Footnotes
Handling editor Runjan Chetty.
Contributors Conceptualisation: RF and PJvD; Methodology: ME; Formal analysis and investigation: RF and ME; Writing-original draft preparation: RF; Writing-review and editing: all authors; Funding acquisition: PJvD, RPM and BBS; Resources: LE; Supervision: PJvD. Guarantor: PJvD
Funding This research was funded by Quality Foundation of the Dutch Associaton of Medical Specialists (SKMS), Astellas Pharma an Pfizer B.V.
Competing interests PJvD received research grants from Quality Foundation of the Dutch Associaton of Medical Specialists (SKMS). RPM received a research grant from Astellas Pharma B.V. BBS received a research grant from Pfizer BV. THvdK receives a consulting fee from Google Inc.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.