4.6 Article

Evaluation of the WHO criteria for the classification of patients with mastocytosis

Journal

MODERN PATHOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 1157-1168

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.84

Keywords

diagnosis; mastocytosis; WHO classification

Categories

Funding

  1. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS) of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion of Spain [PS09/00032, RETICS RD06/0020/0035-FEDER, PI08/90881]
  2. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla La Mancha [FISCAM 2007/36, FISCAM 2008/46]
  3. Junta de Castilla y Leon [SAN1778/2009, GR37]
  4. FIS/FEDER [CP03/00035]
  5. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal [SFRH/BD/17545/2004]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/17545/2004] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diagnosis and classification of mastocytosis is currently based on the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Here, we evaluate the utility of the WHO criteria for the diagnosis and classification of a large series of mastocytosis patients (n=133), and propose a new algorithm that could be routinely applied for refined diagnosis and classification of the disease. Our results confirm the utility of the WHO criteria and provide evidence for the need of additional information for (1) a more precise diagnosis of mastocytosis, (2) specific identification of new forms of the disease, (3) the differential diagnosis between cutaneous mastocytosis vs systemic mastocytosis, and (4) improved distinction between indolent systemic mastocytosis and aggressive systemic mastocytosis. Based on our results, a new algorithm is proposed for a better diagnostic definition and prognostic classification of mastocytosis, as confirmed prospectively in an independent validation series of 117 mastocytosis patients. Modern Pathology (2011) 24, 1157-1168; doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.84; published online 6 May 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available