Navigating The 2022 International Consensus and World Health Organization Classifications of Hematopathology: A Call for Unified Diagnostic Language.

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":null,"pages":null},"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
驾驭 2022 年国际共识和世界卫生组织的血液病理学分类:呼吁统一诊断语言。
背景2022年,世界卫生组织(WHO)第五版指南(WHO2022)和国际共识分类(ICC)这两个不同的髓系肿瘤诊断指南正式发布。尽管两者有很大的重叠,但仍存在重要的差异,可能会产生重要的影响:探讨美国血液肿瘤学家和血液病理学家目前的观点和诊断实践:设计:使用 REDCap 创建了一个在线匿名调查,并通过电子邮件和社交媒体上的帖子向研究金项目领导分享了一个安全链接:共收到 310 份回复。309名受访者中只有33人(10.7%)表示仅使用2016年世界卫生组织指南进行诊断,而309名受访者中有167人(54%)使用其他指南作为补充。其余受访者要么不确定(17;5.5%),要么仅使用 WHO2022(46;14.9%),要么仅使用 ICC(6;1.9%)。指南的选择与地区(P = .15)、实践环境(P = .86)或医院规模(P = .22)无关。90%以上的人表示,这是在临床诊断、管理、试验设计和其他领域造成混乱的原因:总之,我们的研究发现,有两种不同的指南可能会给医生带来困惑,因此需要一种统一的诊断语言。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: A Review. Exploring the Incidence of Testicular Neoplasms in the Transgender Population: A Case Series. Global Pathology: A Snapshot of the Problems, the Progress, and the Potential. Pathologists Providing Direct Patient Care in Thoracic Transplant: Same Objective, Different Scope. The Impact of Pathologist Review on Peripheral Blood Smears: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22 Laboratories.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1