ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
WHO/ICC Classification for Myelodysplastic Neoplasms/Syndromes Performs Better for Subtype Cytomorphological Diagnosis?
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (ICC) and the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO 2022) have refined the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Both classifications segregate MDS subtypes based on molecular or cytogenetic findings but rely on the subjective assessment of blast cell percentage and dysplasia in hematopoietic cell lineages. This study aimed to evaluate interobserver concordance among 13 cytomorphologists from eight hospitals in assessing blast percentages and dysplastic features in 44 MDS patients. The study found fair interobserver agreement for the PB blast percentage and moderate agreement for the BM blast percentage, with the best concordance in cases with <5% BM blasts and >10% BM blasts. Monocyte count agreement was fair, and dysplasia assessment showed moderate concordance for megakaryocytic lineage but lower concordance for erythroid and granulocytic lineages. Overall, interobserver concordance for MDS subtypes was moderate across all classifications, with slightly better results for WHO 2022. These findings highlight the ongoing need for morphological evaluation in MDS diagnosis despite advances in genetic and molecular techniques. The study supports the blast percentage ranges established by the ICC but suggests refining BM blast cutoffs. Given the moderate interobserver concordance, a unified classification approach for MDS is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.