A comparison of WHO-5 and ICC classifications in a series of myeloid neoplasms, considerations for hematopathologists and molecular pathologists

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Margaret E Moore, Eli Williams, Lauren Pelkey, Elizabeth L Courville
{"title":"A comparison of WHO-5 and ICC classifications in a series of myeloid neoplasms, considerations for hematopathologists and molecular pathologists","authors":"Margaret E Moore,&nbsp;Eli Williams,&nbsp;Lauren Pelkey,&nbsp;Elizabeth L Courville","doi":"10.1016/j.cancergen.2024.06.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The International Consensus Classification (ICC) and 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification (WHO-5) made substantive updates to the classification of myeloid neoplasms. This study compares the systems in a series of myeloid neoplasms with increased blasts, analyzing implications for diagnostic workflow and reporting.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Bone marrow biopsies categorized as myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts (MDS-EB) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) by WHO-R4 were identified. Results of morphology review, karyotype, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and next-generation sequencing were compiled. Cases were retrospectively re-classified by WHO-5 and ICC.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>46 cases were reviewed. 28 cases (61 %) had ≥20 % blasts, with the remaining cases having 5–19.5 % blasts. The most common differences in classification were 1) the designation of MDS versus MDS/AML (10/46, 22 %) for cases with 10–19 % blasts and 2) the ICC's designation of <em>TP53</em> variants as a separate classifier for AML (8/46, 17 %). Bi-allelic/multi-hit <em>TP53</em> alterations were identified in 15 cases (33 %). Variants of potential germline significance were identified in 29 (63 %) cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While terminology differences between WHO-5 and ICC exist, both systems invoke similar opportunities for improved reporting: standardized classification of pathogenic variants (notably <em>TP53</em>), streamlined systems to evaluate for potential germline variants, and integrated reporting of morphologic and genetic data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49225,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Genetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210776224000255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The International Consensus Classification (ICC) and 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification (WHO-5) made substantive updates to the classification of myeloid neoplasms. This study compares the systems in a series of myeloid neoplasms with increased blasts, analyzing implications for diagnostic workflow and reporting.

Methods

Bone marrow biopsies categorized as myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts (MDS-EB) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) by WHO-R4 were identified. Results of morphology review, karyotype, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and next-generation sequencing were compiled. Cases were retrospectively re-classified by WHO-5 and ICC.

Results

46 cases were reviewed. 28 cases (61 %) had ≥20 % blasts, with the remaining cases having 5–19.5 % blasts. The most common differences in classification were 1) the designation of MDS versus MDS/AML (10/46, 22 %) for cases with 10–19 % blasts and 2) the ICC's designation of TP53 variants as a separate classifier for AML (8/46, 17 %). Bi-allelic/multi-hit TP53 alterations were identified in 15 cases (33 %). Variants of potential germline significance were identified in 29 (63 %) cases.

Conclusions

While terminology differences between WHO-5 and ICC exist, both systems invoke similar opportunities for improved reporting: standardized classification of pathogenic variants (notably TP53), streamlined systems to evaluate for potential germline variants, and integrated reporting of morphologic and genetic data.

在一系列髓样肿瘤中比较 WHO-5 和 ICC 分类,供血液病理学家和分子病理学家参考。
目的:国际共识分类(ICC)和第五版世界卫生组织分类(WHO-5)对髓样肿瘤的分类进行了实质性更新。本研究比较了一系列囊泡增多的骨髓性肿瘤的分类系统,分析了其对诊断工作流程和报告的影响:方法:对被 WHO-R4 诊断为骨髓增生异常综合征(MDS-EB)或急性髓系白血病(AML)的骨髓活检样本进行鉴定。对形态学检查、核型、荧光原位杂交和新一代测序的结果进行了汇总。根据 WHO-5 和 ICC 对病例进行回顾性重新分类:结果:共审查了 46 个病例。28例病例(61%)囊泡≥20%,其余病例囊泡为5%-19.5%。最常见的分类差异是:1)10-19% 囊泡的病例被指定为 MDS 而非 MDS/AML(10/46,22%);2)ICC 将 TP53 变体指定为急性髓细胞性白血病的单独分类器(8/46,17%)。在 15 个病例(33%)中发现了双拷贝/多拷贝 TP53 变异。在29个病例(63%)中发现了具有潜在种系意义的变异:虽然WHO-5和ICC之间存在术语差异,但这两个系统都为改进报告提供了类似的机会:致病变异(尤其是TP53)的标准化分类、评估潜在种系变异的简化系统以及形态学和遗传学数据的综合报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Genetics
Cancer Genetics ONCOLOGY-GENETICS & HEREDITY
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
167
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The aim of Cancer Genetics is to publish high quality scientific papers on the cellular, genetic and molecular aspects of cancer, including cancer predisposition and clinical diagnostic applications. Specific areas of interest include descriptions of new chromosomal, molecular or epigenetic alterations in benign and malignant diseases; novel laboratory approaches for identification and characterization of chromosomal rearrangements or genomic alterations in cancer cells; correlation of genetic changes with pathology and clinical presentation; and the molecular genetics of cancer predisposition. To reach a basic science and clinical multidisciplinary audience, we welcome original full-length articles, reviews, meeting summaries, brief reports, and letters to the editor.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信