The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) hosts a reference image database supervised by experts with the purpose of establishing an international standard in prostate cancer grading. Here, we aimed to identify areas of grading difficulties and compare the results with those obtained from an artificial intelligence system trained in grading. In a series of 87 needle biopsies of cancers selected to include problematic cases, experts failed to reach a 2/3 consensus in 41.4% (36/87). Among consensus and non-consensus cases, the weighted kappa was 0.77 (range 0.68-0.84) and 0.50 (range 0.40-0.57), respectively. Among the non-consensus cases, four main causes of disagreement were identified: the distinction between Gleason score 3 + 3 with tangential cutting artifacts vs. Gleason score 3 + 4 with poorly formed or fused glands (13 cases), Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 (7 cases), Gleason score 4 + 3 vs. 4 + 4 (8 cases) and the identification of a small component of Gleason pattern 5 (6 cases). The AI system obtained a weighted kappa value of 0.53 among the non-consensus cases, placing it as the observer with the sixth best reproducibility out of a total of 24. AI may serve as a decision support and decrease inter-observer variability by its ability to make consistent decisions. The grading of these cancer patterns that best predicts outcome and guides treatment warrants further clinical and genetic studies. Results of such investigations should be used to improve calibration of AI systems.

AIMS: Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading. METHODS AND RESULTS: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two-thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members are able to access a limited number of cases. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified.