4.2 Review

Histopathologic diagnosis of chronic graft-versus-host disease: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: II. Pathology Working Group report

Journal

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 31-47

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2005.10.023

Keywords

chronic graft-versus-host disease; allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation; consensus diagnosis; pathology

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIDBC010688, Z01BC010688] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This consensus document provides an update for pathologists and clinicians about the interpretation of biopsy results and use of this information in the management of hematopoietic cell transplantation patients. Optimal sampling and tissue preparation are discussed. Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are proposed, together with specific requirements for the diagnosis of chronic GVHD. Four final diagnostic categories (no GVHD, possible GVHD, consistent with GVHD, and definite GVHD) reflect the integration of histopathology with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic information. Finally, the Working Group developed a set of worksheets to facilitate communication of clinical information to the interpreting pathologist and to aid in clinicopathologic correlation studies. Forms are available at http://www.asbmt.org/cGvHD_Guidelines. The recommendations of the Working Group represent a consensus opinion supplemented by evaluation of available peer-reviewed literature. Consensus recommendations and suggusted data-capture forms should be validated in prospective clinicopathologic studies. (c) 2006 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available