Reporting bone marrow biopsies for myelodysplastic neoplasms and acute myeloid leukaemia incorporating WHO 5th edition and ICC 2022 classification systems: ALLG/RCPA joint committee consensus recommendations
Ashley P. Ng , Rebecca Adams , Ing Soo Tiong , Louise Seymour , Dipti Talaulikar , Emma Palfreyman , Anoop Enjeti , Courtney Tate
{"title":"Reporting bone marrow biopsies for myelodysplastic neoplasms and acute myeloid leukaemia incorporating WHO 5th edition and ICC 2022 classification systems: ALLG/RCPA joint committee consensus recommendations","authors":"Ashley P. Ng , Rebecca Adams , Ing Soo Tiong , Louise Seymour , Dipti Talaulikar , Emma Palfreyman , Anoop Enjeti , Courtney Tate","doi":"10.1016/j.pathol.2024.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The classification of myeloid neoplasms continues to evolve along with advances in molecular diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of disease. An approach for disease classification has been grounded in international consensus that has facilitated understanding, identification and management of molecularly heterogeneous entities, as well as enabled consistent patient stratification into clinical trials and clinical registries over time. The new World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) Clinical Advisory Committee releasing separate classification systems for myeloid neoplasms in 2022 precipitated some concern amongst haematopathology colleagues both locally and internationally. While both classifications emphasise molecular disease classification over the historical use of morphology, flow cytometry and cytogenetic based diagnostic methods, notable differences exist in how morphological, molecular and cytogenetic criteria are applied for defining myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemias (AML). Here we review the conceptual advances, diagnostic nuances, and molecular platforms required for the diagnosis of MDS and AML using the new WHO and ICC 2022 classifications. We provide consensus recommendations for reporting bone marrow biopsies. Additionally, we address the logistical challenges encountered implementing these changes into routine laboratory practice in alignment with the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council reporting requirements for Australia and New Zealand.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19915,"journal":{"name":"Pathology","volume":"56 4","pages":"Pages 459-467"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031302524000862","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The classification of myeloid neoplasms continues to evolve along with advances in molecular diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of disease. An approach for disease classification has been grounded in international consensus that has facilitated understanding, identification and management of molecularly heterogeneous entities, as well as enabled consistent patient stratification into clinical trials and clinical registries over time. The new World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) Clinical Advisory Committee releasing separate classification systems for myeloid neoplasms in 2022 precipitated some concern amongst haematopathology colleagues both locally and internationally. While both classifications emphasise molecular disease classification over the historical use of morphology, flow cytometry and cytogenetic based diagnostic methods, notable differences exist in how morphological, molecular and cytogenetic criteria are applied for defining myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemias (AML). Here we review the conceptual advances, diagnostic nuances, and molecular platforms required for the diagnosis of MDS and AML using the new WHO and ICC 2022 classifications. We provide consensus recommendations for reporting bone marrow biopsies. Additionally, we address the logistical challenges encountered implementing these changes into routine laboratory practice in alignment with the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council reporting requirements for Australia and New Zealand.
随着分子诊断、风险分层和疾病治疗的进步,髓系肿瘤的分类也在不断发展。疾病分类的方法以国际共识为基础,有助于对分子异质性实体的理解、识别和管理,并随着时间的推移在临床试验和临床登记中对患者进行一致的分层。世界卫生组织(WHO)和国际共识分类(ICC)临床咨询委员会于2022年分别发布了新的骨髓性肿瘤分类系统,这引起了国内外血液病理学同行的关注。虽然这两个分类系统都强调分子疾病分类,而不是历史上使用的基于形态学、流式细胞术和细胞遗传学的诊断方法,但在如何应用形态学、分子和细胞遗传学标准来定义骨髓增生异常肿瘤(MDS)和急性髓系白血病(AML)方面存在显著差异。在此,我们回顾了概念上的进步、诊断上的细微差别以及使用新的 WHO 和 ICC 2022 分类诊断 MDS 和 AML 所需的分子平台。我们提供了骨髓活检报告的共识建议。此外,我们还讨论了根据澳大利亚和新西兰国家病理鉴定咨询委员会的报告要求将这些变化落实到常规实验室实践中所遇到的后勤挑战。
期刊介绍:
Published by Elsevier from 2016
Pathology is the official journal of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). It is committed to publishing peer-reviewed, original articles related to the science of pathology in its broadest sense, including anatomical pathology, chemical pathology and biochemistry, cytopathology, experimental pathology, forensic pathology and morbid anatomy, genetics, haematology, immunology and immunopathology, microbiology and molecular pathology.