Hadil Zureigat, Bridget Adcock, Daniel P Nurse, Asad Rauf, Heya Batah, Mariah Ondeck, Bianca Honnekeri, MaryBeth Mercer, Xuefei Jia, Matthew Rump, Kamran M Mirza, Samer Al Hadidi, Moaath K Mustafa Ali
{"title":"Navigating The 2022 International Consensus and World Health Organization Classifications of Hematopathology: A Call for Unified Diagnostic Language.","authors":"Hadil Zureigat, Bridget Adcock, Daniel P Nurse, Asad Rauf, Heya Batah, Mariah Ondeck, Bianca Honnekeri, MaryBeth Mercer, Xuefei Jia, Matthew Rump, Kamran M Mirza, Samer Al Hadidi, Moaath K Mustafa Ali","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0031-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>In 2022, 2 distinct guidelines for the diagnosis of myeloid neoplasms became available: the 5th edition of the World Health Organization guideline (WHO2022) solely and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Despite major overlap, there are important differences that can have important implications.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To explore the current opinions and diagnostic practices of hemato-oncologists and hematopathologists across the United States.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>An online anonymous survey was created using REDCap, and a secure link was shared via email to fellowship program leaderships and via posts on social media.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>A total of 310 responses were obtained. Only 33 of 309 respondents (10.7%) reported using solely the 2016 World Health Organization guideline to make diagnoses, whereas 167 of 309 (54%) supplemented it with other guidelines. The rest were either not sure (17; 5.5%), used WHO2022 solely (46; 14.9%), or used ICC solely (6; 1.9%). The choice of guideline was not related to region (P = .15), practice setting (P = .86), or hospital size (P = .22). More than 90% reported it is a source of confusion in clinical diagnosis, management, trial design, and other areas.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Overall, our study found that having 2 distinct guidelines could be a source of confusion for physicians and calls for a unified diagnostic language.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0031-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context.—: In 2022, 2 distinct guidelines for the diagnosis of myeloid neoplasms became available: the 5th edition of the World Health Organization guideline (WHO2022) solely and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Despite major overlap, there are important differences that can have important implications.
Objective.—: To explore the current opinions and diagnostic practices of hemato-oncologists and hematopathologists across the United States.
Design.—: An online anonymous survey was created using REDCap, and a secure link was shared via email to fellowship program leaderships and via posts on social media.
Results.—: A total of 310 responses were obtained. Only 33 of 309 respondents (10.7%) reported using solely the 2016 World Health Organization guideline to make diagnoses, whereas 167 of 309 (54%) supplemented it with other guidelines. The rest were either not sure (17; 5.5%), used WHO2022 solely (46; 14.9%), or used ICC solely (6; 1.9%). The choice of guideline was not related to region (P = .15), practice setting (P = .86), or hospital size (P = .22). More than 90% reported it is a source of confusion in clinical diagnosis, management, trial design, and other areas.
Conclusions.—: Overall, our study found that having 2 distinct guidelines could be a source of confusion for physicians and calls for a unified diagnostic language.