4.3 Review

Recommendations for molecular testing in classical Ph1-neg myeloproliferative disorders-A consensus project of the Italian Society of Hematology

Journal

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 63-72

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2017.04.006

Keywords

Myeloproliferative neoplasm; Polycythemia vera; Essential thrombocythemia; Myelofibrosis; Diagnosis; Monitoring; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC Milano)
  2. Special Program Molecular Clinical Oncology (AIRC-Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative) [5 x1000]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discovery that Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) present with several molecular abnormalities, including the mostly represented JAK2V617F mutation, opened new horizons in the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of these disorders. However, the great strides in the knowledge on molecular genetics need parallel progresses on the best approach to methods for detecting and reporting diseaseassociated mutations, and to shape the most effective and rationale testing pathway in the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of MPNs. The MPN taskforce of the Italian Society of Hematology (SIE) assessed the scientific literature and composed a framework of the best, possibly evidence-based, recommendations for optimal molecular methods as well as insights about the applicability and interpretation of those tests in the clinical practice, and clinical decision for testing MPNs patients. The issues dealt with: source of samples and nucleic acid template, the most appropriate molecular abnormalities and related detection methods required for diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of MPNs, how to report a diagnostic molecular test, calibration and quality control. For each of these issues, practice recommendations were provided.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available