Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40941026›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Hodgkin Lymphoma Classification-From Historical Concepts to Current Refinements.

Antonino Carbone, Mohamed N Alibrahim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Antonino CarboneCentro di Riferimento Oncologico, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, National Cancer Institute, 33081 Aviano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2211-639X
Mohamed N AlibrahimFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt.ORCID 0009-0009-9390-5645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current classification of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is the result of an integrated approach that combines the evaluation of morphological patterns, immunophenotypic characteristics, molecular features, and clinical presentation. Evolving from its origins based solely on histological observation to the latest updates in the WHO 5th Edition, this system has become an essential tool for accurate diagnosis and personalized therapeutic strategies. Each subtype of classic HL (cHL)-nodular sclerosis, mixed cellularity, lymphocyte-rich, and lymphocyte-depleted-exhibits distinctive pathological and clinical features, now better understood through multidisciplinary studies and international collaborations. HL also includes nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL (NLPHL), a distinct entity with unique morphologic, immunophenotypic, and clinical features. A hallmark morphological feature of cHL is the presence of Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells, large and often multinucleated cells derived from B lymphocytes that have lost their typical B-cell phenotype. Identifying these cells is critical for diagnosis and for differentiating HL from other hematologic malignancies. HL is characterized by the rarity of malignant cells, a high curability rate, and a rich immune cell microenvironment that is both shaped and exploited by the tumor. Understanding these core aspects paves the way for exploring the role of immunologic and genetic biomarkers in refining classification, enhancing diagnosis, improving prognostic assessment, and guiding therapy for patients with cHL.

Indexed as

classic Hodgkin lymphomaclassificationHodgkin lymphomaInternational Consensus ClassificationNLPHLWHO classification 5th edition

Identifiers

PMID40941026
PMCPMC12428609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.