Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen

Alessandro Morlacco, Christopher R. Murphy, Laureano J. Rangel, Lance A. Mynderse, Robert H. Thompson, Robert Jeffrey Karnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy may be performed by operators with various levels of training. Little is known about the impact of training level on biopsy results. We evaluated the effect of training level on the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy findings. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 500 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Transrectal ultrasound operators were stratified based on level of training as junior, senior, chief, fellow or staff. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effect of training level on volume estimates. A weighted Kappa statistic evaluated agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores while an adjusted cumulative logistic regression model analyzed the effects of training level. Results A total of 482 patients were included in the final analysis. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was performed by staff in 78 (16%) patients, by fellows in 18 (4%), chief residents in 48 (10%), senior residents in 126 (26%) and junior residents in 212 (44%). There was no significant difference between transrectal ultrasound and radical prostatectomy specimen volume estimates among the training levels. Level of training was not significantly associated with pathological features, including Gleason score, primary Gleason grade, highest single Gleason grade and estimated tumor volume. Study limitations include the retrospective design and the variability among members of the same group. Conclusions Agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores is high for all levels of training. Training level has no impact on prostate volume estimations or the prediction of pathological features.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)76-82
Number of pages7
JournalUrology Practice
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Urology
Prostatectomy
Prostate
Biopsy
Logistic Models
Tumor Burden
Linear Models

Keywords

  • biopsy
  • high-intensity focused
  • internship and residency
  • neoplasm grading
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • transrectal
  • ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen. / Morlacco, Alessandro; Murphy, Christopher R.; Rangel, Laureano J.; Mynderse, Lance A.; Thompson, Robert H.; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey.

In: Urology Practice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 76-82.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Morlacco, Alessandro ; Murphy, Christopher R. ; Rangel, Laureano J. ; Mynderse, Lance A. ; Thompson, Robert H. ; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey. / Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen. In: Urology Practice. 2018 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 76-82.
@article{9b5de7615b324d848d9d15319880b2d1,
title = "Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen",
abstract = "Introduction Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy may be performed by operators with various levels of training. Little is known about the impact of training level on biopsy results. We evaluated the effect of training level on the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy findings. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 500 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Transrectal ultrasound operators were stratified based on level of training as junior, senior, chief, fellow or staff. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effect of training level on volume estimates. A weighted Kappa statistic evaluated agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores while an adjusted cumulative logistic regression model analyzed the effects of training level. Results A total of 482 patients were included in the final analysis. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was performed by staff in 78 (16{\%}) patients, by fellows in 18 (4{\%}), chief residents in 48 (10{\%}), senior residents in 126 (26{\%}) and junior residents in 212 (44{\%}). There was no significant difference between transrectal ultrasound and radical prostatectomy specimen volume estimates among the training levels. Level of training was not significantly associated with pathological features, including Gleason score, primary Gleason grade, highest single Gleason grade and estimated tumor volume. Study limitations include the retrospective design and the variability among members of the same group. Conclusions Agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores is high for all levels of training. Training level has no impact on prostate volume estimations or the prediction of pathological features.",
keywords = "biopsy, high-intensity focused, internship and residency, neoplasm grading, prostatic neoplasms, transrectal, ultrasound",
author = "Alessandro Morlacco and Murphy, {Christopher R.} and Rangel, {Laureano J.} and Mynderse, {Lance A.} and Thompson, {Robert H.} and Karnes, {Robert Jeffrey}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urpr.2016.11.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "76--82",
journal = "Urology Practice",
issn = "2352-0779",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen

AU - Morlacco, Alessandro

AU - Murphy, Christopher R.

AU - Rangel, Laureano J.

AU - Mynderse, Lance A.

AU - Thompson, Robert H.

AU - Karnes, Robert Jeffrey

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Introduction Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy may be performed by operators with various levels of training. Little is known about the impact of training level on biopsy results. We evaluated the effect of training level on the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy findings. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 500 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Transrectal ultrasound operators were stratified based on level of training as junior, senior, chief, fellow or staff. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effect of training level on volume estimates. A weighted Kappa statistic evaluated agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores while an adjusted cumulative logistic regression model analyzed the effects of training level. Results A total of 482 patients were included in the final analysis. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was performed by staff in 78 (16%) patients, by fellows in 18 (4%), chief residents in 48 (10%), senior residents in 126 (26%) and junior residents in 212 (44%). There was no significant difference between transrectal ultrasound and radical prostatectomy specimen volume estimates among the training levels. Level of training was not significantly associated with pathological features, including Gleason score, primary Gleason grade, highest single Gleason grade and estimated tumor volume. Study limitations include the retrospective design and the variability among members of the same group. Conclusions Agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores is high for all levels of training. Training level has no impact on prostate volume estimations or the prediction of pathological features.

AB - Introduction Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy may be performed by operators with various levels of training. Little is known about the impact of training level on biopsy results. We evaluated the effect of training level on the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy findings. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 500 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Transrectal ultrasound operators were stratified based on level of training as junior, senior, chief, fellow or staff. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effect of training level on volume estimates. A weighted Kappa statistic evaluated agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores while an adjusted cumulative logistic regression model analyzed the effects of training level. Results A total of 482 patients were included in the final analysis. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was performed by staff in 78 (16%) patients, by fellows in 18 (4%), chief residents in 48 (10%), senior residents in 126 (26%) and junior residents in 212 (44%). There was no significant difference between transrectal ultrasound and radical prostatectomy specimen volume estimates among the training levels. Level of training was not significantly associated with pathological features, including Gleason score, primary Gleason grade, highest single Gleason grade and estimated tumor volume. Study limitations include the retrospective design and the variability among members of the same group. Conclusions Agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores is high for all levels of training. Training level has no impact on prostate volume estimations or the prediction of pathological features.

KW - biopsy

KW - high-intensity focused

KW - internship and residency

KW - neoplasm grading

KW - prostatic neoplasms

KW - transrectal

KW - ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85036646527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85036646527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urpr.2016.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.urpr.2016.11.010

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85036646527

VL - 5

SP - 76

EP - 82

JO - Urology Practice

JF - Urology Practice

SN - 2352-0779

IS - 1

ER -