Practice Patterns in Reporting Tertiary Grades at Radical Prostatectomy: Survey of a Large Group of Experienced Urologic Pathologists

Abstract

Context.— In prostate cancer, “tertiary” higher-grade patterns (TPs) have been associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Objective.— To determine variation regarding definition and application of TPs. Design.— Online survey regarding TPs in a range of grading scenarios circulated to 105 experienced urologic pathologists. Results.— Among 95 respondents, 40 of 95 (42%) defined TPs as “third most common pattern” and 55 (58%) as “minor pattern/less than 5% of tumor.” In a tumor with pattern 3 and less than 5% pattern 4, of the 95 respondents, 35 (37%) assigned 3 + 3 = 6 with TP4, while 56 (59%) assigned 3 + 4 = 7. In a tumor with pattern 4 and less than 5% pattern 5, of the 95 respondents, 51 (54%) assigned 4 + 4 = 8 with TP5, while 43 (45%) assigned 4 + 5 = 9. Six scenarios were presented in which the order of most common patterns was 3, 4, and 5 (Group 1) or 4, 3, and 5 (Group 2) with varying percentages. In both groups, when pattern 5 was less than 5%, we found that 98% and 93% of respondents would assign 3 + 4 = 7 or 4 + 3 = 7 with TP5. In scenarios with 15% or 25% pattern 5, most respondents (70% and 80%, respectively) would include pattern 5 as the secondary grade, that is, 3 + 5 = 8 (Group 1) or 4 + 5 = 9 (Group 2). For 85 of 95 (89%), a TP would not impact Grade Group assignment. Conclusions.— This survey highlights substantial variation in practice patterns regarding definition and application of “tertiary” grading in radical prostatectomy specimens. High consistency was observed in 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7 scenarios with truly minor pattern 5. These findings should inform future studies assessing the standardization and predictive value of “tertiary” patterns.