4.7 Article

Pro-posed classification of lymphoid neoplasms for epidemiologic research from the Pathology Working Group of the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph)

期刊

BLOOD
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 695-708

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2006-11-051672

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA092153, R01 CA92153, P50 CA097274, P50 CA97274, CA62006-05, N01-CN-35136, R01 CA062006] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence suggests that there is etiologic heterogeneity among the various subtypes of lymphoid neoplasms. However, epidemiologic analyses by disease subtype have proven challenging due to the numerous clinical and pathologic schemes used to classify lymphomas and lymphoid leukemias over the last several decades. On behalf of the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph) Pathology Working Group, we present a proposed nested classification of lymphoid neoplasms to facilitate the analysis of lymphoid neoplasm subtypes in epidemiologic research. The proposed classification is based on the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms and the International Classification of Diseases-Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3). We also provide a translation into the proposed classification from previous classifications, including the Working Formulation, Revised European-American Lymphoma (REAL) classification, and ICD-O-2. We recommend that epidemiologic studies include analyses by lymphoma subtype to the most detailed extent allowable by sample size. The standardization of groupings for epidemiologic research of lymphoma subtypes is essential for comparing subtype-specific reports in the literature, harmonizing cases within a single study diagnosed using different systems, as well as combining data from multiple studies for the purpose of pooled analysis or metaanalysis, and will probably prove to be critical for elucidating etiologies of the various lymphoid neoplasms.

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

4.7
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