PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Hietikko, Ronja
AU  - Mirtti, Tuomas
AU  - Kilpeläinen, Tuomas P.
AU  - Tolonen, Teemu
AU  - Räisänen-Sokolowski, Anne
AU  - Nordling, Stig
AU  - Hannus, Jill
AU  - Laurila, Marita
AU  - Taari, Kimmo
AU  - Tammela, Teuvo LJ
AU  - Autio, Reija
AU  - Natunen, Kari
AU  - Auvinen, Anssi
AU  - Rannikko, Antti
TI  - Expected impact of MRI-targeted biopsy interreader variability among uropathologists on ProScreen prostate cancer screening trial: a pre-trial validation study
AID  - 10.1101/2023.08.08.23293780
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.08.08.23293780
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.08.08.23293780.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.08.08.23293780.full
AB  - Background Prostate cancer (PCa) histology, particularly the Gleason score, is an independent prognostic predictor in PCa. Little is known about the inter-reader variability in grading of targeted prostate biopsy based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Objective To assess inter-reader variability in Gleason grading of MRI-targeted biopsy among uropathologists and its potential impact on a population-based randomized PCa screening trial (ProScreen).Design, setting, and participants From June 2014 to May 2018, 100 men with clinically suspected PCa were retrospectively selected. All men underwent prostate MRI and 86 underwent targeted prostate of the prostate.Intervention Six pathologists individually reviewed the pathology slides of the prostate biopsies.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The five-tier ISUP (The International Society of Urological Pathology) grade grouping (GG) system was used. Fleiss’ weighted kappa (κ) and Model based kappa for associations were computed to estimate the combined agreement between individual pathologists.Results and limitations GG reporting of targeted prostate was highly consistent among the trial pathologists. Inter-reader agreement for cancer (GG 1-5) vs. benign was excellent (Model-based kappa 0.90, Fleiss’ kappa κ = 0.90) and for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (GG 2-5 vs. GG 0 vs GG1) it was good (Model-based kappa 0.70, Fleiss’ kappa κ 0.67).Conclusions Inter-reader agreement in grading of MRI-targeted biopsy was good to excellent, while it was fair to moderate for MRI in the same cohort, as previously shown. Importantly, there was wide consensus by pathologists in assigning the contemporary GG on MRI-targeted biopsy suggesting high reproducibility of pathology reporting in the ProScreen trial.Patient summary It is currently unknown to what extent pathologists differ in their evaluation of histopathology in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. We show that the agreement is good to excellent. We expect individual pathologist to have a minimal impact on MRI-based prostate cancer screening including the ProScreen trial.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee of Helsinki University Hospital gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors