4.5 Review

Panel-based gene testing in myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap syndromes: Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) consensus statement

期刊

PATHOLOGY
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 389-398

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2022.03.002

关键词

Myelodysplasia; myeloproliferative neoplasms; gene panel; NGS; consensus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides an expert consensus statement on the role of gene-panel testing in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of adult MDS/MPN overlap syndromes in Australia. The consensus statement was developed by an expert group actively involved in gene-panel testing in the field of MDS/MPN in Australia. The authors were selected based on their laboratory involvement in gene-panel testing, specific interest in MDS/MPN, and publication record in the field. At least two authors reviewed each section, and a diagnostic algorithm was developed through consensus among all authors.
This review aims to provide an expert consensus statement to address the role of gene-panel testing in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of adult myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap syndromes (MDS/MPN) in Australia. This consensus statement was developed by an expert group, actively involved in gene panel testing in the area of MDS/MPN in Australia. This work was led by the chairs of the MDS (A/Prof A. Enjeti) and MPN (A/Prof D. Ross) working parties of the Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG). The authors were selected after an expression of interest process on the basis of active laboratory involvement in gene panel testing, a specific demonstrated interest in MDS/MPN and/or publication record in this field. The authors were then allocated sections for literature review to identify the specific genes of interest for each MDS/MPN entity. At least two authors reviewed each section and an overarching diagnostic algorithm was developed by a consensus amongst all authors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据