|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on June 21, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1199.
REVIEW ARTICLE
From the Department of Pathology, University of
Chicago, IL; Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital
and Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Laboratory
Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
A World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematopoietic
and lymphoid neoplasms has recently been published. This classification
was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society for
Hematopathology, the European Association of Hematopathologists, and
more than 100 clinical hematologists and scientists who are
internationally recognized for their expertise in hematopoietic
neoplasms. For the lymphoid neoplasms, this classification provides a
refinement of the entities described in the Revised European-American
Lymphoma (REAL) Classification Recently, the World Health Organization
(WHO), in conjunction with the Society for Hematopathology and the
European Association of Hematopathology, published a new classification
for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.1 The concepts
that underlie this classification were derived from numerous published
clinical and scientific studies and from the experience of more than
100 pathologists, clinicians, and scientists from around the world who
collaborated to develop this consensus
classification.2 A basic principle of the WHO system is
that the classification of hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms should
utilize not only morphologic findings but also all available
information, including genetic, immunophenotypic, biologic, and
clinical features to define specific disease entities. Essentially, the
WHO classification attempts to incorporate those disease
characteristics that have proved to have clinical and biologic
relevance into a useful, working nomenclature.
For the lymphoid neoplasms, the WHO classification provides refinement
of the entities defined in the Revised European-American Lymphoma
(REAL) Classification The WHO classification is similar to the FAB and PVSG schemes in
that it relies on morphologic, cytochemical, and immunophenotypic features of the neoplastic cells to establish their lineage and degree
of maturation. As was true for antecedent classifications, the WHO
recognizes the practical importance of the "blast count" in
categorizing myeloid diseases and in predicting prognosis. Therefore,
the WHO attempts to clearly define "blasts" and to clarify specific
issues regarding their accurate and reproducible enumeration. Some of
the criteria for blast morphology differ from those in previous classifications.
The blast percentage and assessment of degree of maturation and
dysplastic abnormalities in the neoplastic cells should be determined,
if possible, from a 200-cell leukocyte differential performed on a
peripheral blood smear and a 500-cell differential performed on marrow
aspirate smears stained with Wright Giemsa or May-Grünwald
Giemsa. The blast percentage should be correlated with an estimate of
the blast count from the marrow biopsy section. In addition to
myeloblasts, the monoblasts and promonocytes in acute
monoblastic/monocytic and acute and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and
the megakaryoblasts in acute megakaryoblastic leukemia are considered
as "blast equivalents" when the requisite percentage of blasts is
calculated for the diagnosis of AML. In acute promyelocytic leukemia
(APL), the blast equivalent is the abnormal promyelocyte. This latter
cell is usually characterized by a reniform or bilobed nucleus, but its
cytoplasm may vary from heavily granulated with bundles of Auer rods to
virtually agranular. A recent, detailed morphologic analysis of the
abnormal promyelocytes in APL has led to a better appreciation of the
cytologic variability of the leukemic cells in this
disorder.8 Erythroid precursors (erythroblasts) are not
included in the blast count except in the rare instance of "pure"
erythroleukemia. Dysplastic micromegakaryocytes are also excluded from
the blast percentage. Although assessment of the number of cells that
express the antigen CD34 provides valuable data for diagnostic and
prognostic purposes, the percentage of CD34+ cells should
not be considered a substitute for a blast count from the smears or an
estimate from the bone marrow biopsy. Although CD34+
hematopoietic cells generally are blasts, not all blasts express CD34.9
The percentage of blasts proposed by the WHO to categorize a specific
case is the percent blasts as a component of all nucleated marrow
cells, with the exception of acute erythroleukemia (see below). If a
myeloid neoplasm is found concomitantly with another hematologic
neoplasm The WHO classification for AML, MDS, and MPD includes specific genetic
subcategories; thus, determination of genetic features of the
neoplastic cells must be performed if possible. Many recurring genetic
abnormalities in the myeloid neoplasms can be identified by reverse
transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or fluorescent in
situ hybridization (FISH), but cytogenetic studies should be performed
initially and at regular intervals throughout the course of the disease
for establishing a complete genetic profile and for detecting genetic
evolution. Although it has been suggested that the lack of immediate
availability of genetic information is an obstacle to the utilization
of the WHO classification,12 currently available
technology should allow assimilation of genetic data in a time frame
that will allow appropriate categorization and therapy. It is
anticipated that future advances in technology will result in more
rapid availability of genetic information.
During the nearly 3 decades that the FAB system was used for
classifying AML, it was discovered that many cases of AML are associated with recurring genetic abnormalities that affect cellular pathways of myeloid maturation and proliferation. The FAB
classification, initially proposed in 1976,4 provided a
consistent morphologic and cytochemical framework in which the
significance of the genetic lesions could be appreciated. In some
instances, such as APL and acute myelomonocytic leukemia with abnormal
eosinophils (M4Eo), the morphologic characteristics predict the
genetic abnormalities. However, morphologic-genetic correlations are
not always perfect, and the genetic findings may predict the prognosis
and biologic properties of the leukemia more consistently than does
morphology. Furthermore, in many cases either there is no correlation
between morphology and genetic defects or the underlying genetic and
molecular defects cannot be identified. Thus, although the FAB
classification recognizes the morphologic heterogeneity of AML, it does
not always reflect the genetic or clinical diversity of the disease.
Some investigators suggest that a more relevant classification of AML
can be achieved if 2 distinctive subgroups with different biologic
features are recognized: (1) AML that evolves from MDS or has features
similar to those found in MDS and (2) AML that arises de novo without
significant myelodysplastic features.13,14 The
characteristics associated with these 2 groups indicate that they have
fundamentally different mechanisms of leukemogenesis. MDS-related
leukemia is associated with multilineage dysplasia, poor-risk
cytogenetic findings that often include loss of genetic material, and a
poor response to therapy. The incidence of this type increases with
age, consistent with the hypothesis that MDS and MDS-related leukemia
arise through multiple insults to the genetic constitution of the
hematopoietic stem cell that occur over time. In contrast, de novo AML
usually lacks significant multilineage dysplasia, is often associated
with good-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, particularly certain
recurring chromosomal translocations and inversions, and often has a
favorable response to appropriate therapy, with good failure-free and
overall survival times.15,16 This type of leukemia has a
relatively constant incidence throughout life and is the type most
likely to be observed in children and young adults.13 It
is probable that specific genetic events associated with these
leukemias, which often involve transcription factors, are a major,
rate-limiting step in their pathogenesis.17
The concept that these and other subgroups of AML can be recognized and
classified as unique diseases through correlation of morphologic,
genetic, and clinical data is a major theme of the WHO classification
and serves as the basis for the 2 most significant differences between
it and the FAB classification: (1) a lower blast threshold for the
diagnosis of AML in the WHO classification and (2) the categorization
of cases of AML into unique clinical and biologic subgroups in the WHO classification.
In the WHO classification, the blast threshold for the diagnosis
of AML is reduced from 30% to 20% blasts in the blood or marrow. In
addition, patients with the clonal, recurring cytogenetic abnormalities
t(8;21)(q22;q22), inv(16)(p13q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22), and
t(15;17)(q22;q12) should be considered to have AML regardless of the
blast percentage (Table 1).
A number of studies indicate that patients with 20% to 29% blasts in
their blood or bone marrow often have similar clinical features Numerous reports indicate that a significant number of patients with
RAEBT and AML with myelodysplastic-related features share several
important biologic and clinical features. According to some studies,
myeloid cells from patients with RAEBT and MDS-related AML have nearly
identical profiles of proliferation and apoptosis that differ from
those in refractory anemia (RA), refractory anemia with ringed
sideroblasts (RARS), and refractory anemia with excess blasts
(RAEB).18 Poor-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including abnormalities of chromosome 7 and complex abnormalities, increased expression of multidrug-resistance glycoproteins, and poor response to
chemotherapy, are also common in RAEBT and in MDS-related
AML.14,19 Some investigators have also reported that, when
matched for similar disease features, such as white blood cell count or
cytogenetic abnormalities, patients with RAEBT and AML have similar
survival times if treated with identical therapy.20-22 In
addition, data from the International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop
indicate that RAEBT is not an indolent disease. In that study, 25% of
patients with 20% to 30% blasts evolved to AML in 2 to 3 months, 50%
in 3 months, and more than 60% developed AML within 1 year. The median survival time for patients with RAEBT was less than 1 year.23
We suggest that the sum of these data indicates that patients with 20%
to 29% blasts in the blood and/or bone marrow accompanied by
multilineage myelodysplasia have essentially the same disease as do
those with AML with multilineage dysplasia and 30% or more blasts and
should be classified in the same category. It is important to emphasize
that therapeutic decisions for patients with MDS-related AML should be
based not only on the percentage of blasts but also on clinical
findings, the rate of disease progression, and genetic data. The effect
on the blast percentage of any previous therapy, such as growth factor
therapy, must also be taken into account. These cautionary notes apply
regardless of whether the blast count is 20%, 30%, or more in a
patient with myelodysplastic-related disease.
The lower blast percentage required for a diagnosis of AML also
addresses another issue: the classification of patients who have no
evidence of multilineage myelodysplasia Three unique subgroups of acute myeloid leukemia are recognized
by the WHO classification (Table 1): (1) AML with recurrent genetic
abnormalities, (2) AML with multilineage dysplasia, and (3) AML and
MDS, therapy related. Cases that do not satisfy the criteria for any of
these subgroups, or for which no genetic data can be obtained, should
be classified as one of the entities in a fourth subgroup: AML, not
otherwise categorized.
Acute myeloid leukemia with recurrent genetic abnormalities
As noted above, the leukemias associated with these recurrent genetic abnormalities generally have the features of de novo AML. However, all of the genes affected in this group are apparently vulnerable to damage caused by certain types of chemotherapy, specifically with topoisomerase II inhibitors, and can be involved in some cases of therapy-related leukemia.27,28 In these instances, the unique clinical background indicates that the case should be classified as therapy-related AML. It is anticipated that the list of entities included in this
subgroup will expand in the future. Some members of the WHO committees suggested that other recurring genetic abnormalities, such as t(8;16),
t(6;9), or t(3;3), should be included in the current listing. Although
these latter genetic abnormalities are often associated with unique
morphologic and/or clinical features, it is not yet clear whether they
define a unique disease or are mainly of prognostic significance within
other subgroups. Furthermore, at least some of the recurring genetic
abnormalities It has been suggested that the WHO classification cannot realistically
be used for AML because genetic information is not always available in
a timely manner.12 Alternatively, a "realistic" classification has been proposed that permits cases to be classified if
the morphologic findings are "suggestive" of a specific genetic abnormality even without adequate knowledge that such a genetic defect
is actually present.12 We agree that the lack of complete information is a problem, but because the genetic data often predict response to treatment and prognosis and often drive treatment decisions, hematologists and pathologists are appropriately under pressure to obtain this information in a timely manner. Furthermore, although the recurring genetic abnormalities are often associated with
distinctive morphologic findings, identification of the genetic defect
provides a more objective, reproducible means of identifying a specific
lesion. For example, the detection of the CBF Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia The WHO classification "AML with multilineage dysplasia" recognizes the biologic and clinical importance of MDS-related AML. The diagnosis of this subtype is readily established in patients in whom there is a well-documented history of MDS or a myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease (MDS/MPD) that has been present for at least 6 months prior to the onset of overt AML (Table 1). However, the definition of MDS-related AML is more difficult for those cases that present initially as acute leukemia. Whether morphologic, genetic, biologic, clinical features, or some combination of these should be used as defining characteristics was a point of controversy among members of the WHO committees. For practical purposes and worldwide usage, however, it was agreed that morphologic evidence of multilineage dysplasia would be the most universally available marker for its recognition. In the WHO classification, the diagnosis of AML with multilineage dysplasia without antecedent MDS or MDS/MPD is made when blasts constitute at least 20% of the blood or marrow cells and when 50% or more of the cells in 2 or more myeloid lineages are dysplastic in a pretreatment sample. Although the 50% figure may appear high, it is derived from a number of studies that indicate that a lower threshold of dysplasia may not consistently identify AML with MDS-like features.32-35 In some studies, multilineage dysplasia is an independent prognostic factor only in patients who have favorable cytogenetics but has no additional adverse impact in patients with poor-risk genetics.35 We suggest that a combination of genetic and morphologic studies may ultimately be used to further characterize this type of leukemia.Acute myeloid leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, therapy related (t-AML and t-MDS) Two types of t-AML and t-MDS are recognized in the WHO classification, depending on the causative therapy: an alkylating agent/radiation-related type and a topoisomerase II inhibitor-related type.Alkylating agent/radiation-related t-AML and t-MDS. This disorder usually appears 4 to 7 years after exposure to the mutagenic agent. Approximately two thirds of cases present with MDS and the remainder as AML with myelodysplastic features.36-40 It could be disputed whether a distinct category is needed for alkylating agent-related AML, because it is similar to AML with multilineage dysplasia and could be placed in that category.12 However, the identification of a known, predisposing etiologic agent is but one major difference between these 2 groups; there is also a higher incidence of abnormalities involving chromosomes 5 and/or 7 and a worse clinical outcome in the therapy-related group.36-39 Topoisomerase II inhibitor-related AML.
In contrast to alkylating agent-related t-AML and t-MDS, acute
leukemia secondary to topoisomerase II inhibitors often does not have a
preceding myelodysplastic phase, and it most frequently presents as
overt acute leukemia, often with a prominent monocytic component.27,28,41-44 The latency period between the
initiation of treatment with topoisomerase II inhibitors and the onset
of leukemia is short, ranging from 6 months to 5 years, with median times of 2 to 3 years usually reported.27,28,41-43 Most
often, this type of t-AML is associated with balanced translocations involving chromosome bands 11q23 or 21q22.27,28,42-44
However, other translocations including inv(16)(p13q22) or
t(15;17)(q22;q12) have been reported, and in these latter instances, as
with 11q23 and 21q22 abnormalities, the morphologic and clinical
findings are similar to those observed in patients with these
translocations and no history of prior cytotoxic
therapy.27,28 The initial response to therapy of
topoisomerase II inhibitor-related AML as well as the overall survival
are reported to be similar to cases of de novo AML with the
corresponding genetic abnormality.28 Acute lymphoblastic
leukemia associated with 11q23 abnormalities Acute myeloid leukemia, not otherwise categorized The group "acute myeloid leukemias, not otherwise categorized" (NOC) is intended to provide a framework for classification of cases that do not satisfy criteria for one of the other major categories. One of the primary considerations for the WHO classification of AML is the universality of application. The resources of hematology laboratories worldwide vary substantially. Although the ideal evaluation of patients with acute leukemia includes cytogenetic and, if necessary, molecular genetic studies, we recognize that these resources are not universally available at the present time. Careful morphologic evaluation can provide very significant information, such as multilineage dysplasia, and will result in appropriate classification in many cases. Furthermore, although direct clinical-genetic correlations are not presently recognized for many of the cases classified as AML, NOC, we anticipate that future studies may uncover relevant clinical, genetic, and morphologic profiles.In most respects, the entities included in this group are defined almost identically as the corresponding entity in the previous FAB classification,4 and the criteria for their recognition are based principally on identification of the major cell lineage(s) involved and the degree of maturation. However, 2 subtypes in this category, acute erythroid leukemia and acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis, deserve special comment. Acute erythroid leukemia. Acute erythroid leukemia is characterized by a predominant erythroid proliferation in the bone marrow. Recently, attention has been focused on the heterogeneity of neoplasms of erythroid cells and, in particular, on those that are composed mainly of primitive erythroid precursors with a minimal, if any, myeloblastic component.47-51 These latter cases may not meet the requirements of the FAB classification for a diagnosis of acute leukemia. The WHO classification recognizes 2 subtypes of acute erythroid leukemia, based on the presence or absence of a significant myeloblastic component. The first type, acute erythroid/myeloid leukemia, is defined as having at least 50% erythroid precursors in the entire marrow nucleated cell population and myeloblasts that account for at least 20% of the nonerythroid cell population. It corresponds to AML M6 in the FAB classification. All stages of erythroid maturation are found with a variable shift toward erythroid immaturity. Some cases that meet the criteria for acute erythroid/myeloid leukemia will also meet the criteria for AML with multilineage dysplasia. If that is the case, we would suggest that a diagnosis of "AML with multilineage dysplasia, acute erythroid/myeloid type" be made. The second subtype of acute erythroid leukemia recognized by the WHO is "pure erythroid leukemia," characterized by the proliferation of immature cells committed exclusively to the erythroid lineage. In this disease, 80% or more of all marrow cells are immature erythroid precursors with minimal differentiation, and there is no significant myeloblastic component. Although the blast cell morphology usually suggests their erythroid origin, in some cases they may be so primitive that proving their lineage is difficult.47,49,51 This erythroid neoplasm has been referred to previously as DiGuglielmo disease, acute erythremic myelosis, true erythroleukemia, and minimally differentiated erythroleukemia.47-52Acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis. Acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis (APMF) is an acute myeloid disorder with an unfavorable prognosis.53 Although it is uncommon (fewer than 1%-2% of all cases of acute leukemia), when APMF is encountered the fibrosis may cause considerable difficulty in arriving at a correct diagnosis.54 The critical point is to recognize that it is an acute process that has sufficient numbers of blasts to be considered AML. It is often associated with dysplasia and immaturity in multiple cell lines, with a prominent megakaryoblastic and megakaryocytic population. We believe that the diseases known as acute myelosclerosis, acute myelofibrosis, acute myelodysplasia with myelofibrosis, and malignant myelosclerosis53,55-57 are synonymous with APMF. It is necessary to distinguish this entity from chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis (CIMF) as well as from lower grades of MDS associated with myelofibrosis. Some morphologic features of APMF overlap AML with multilineage dysplasia with the addition of myelofibrosis; whether these are 2 manifestations of the same process is unclear. At present, we suggest that they be recognized as individual entities. There is also some controversy about the relationship of APMF to acute megakaryoblastic leukemia.58,59 The WHO committee recognized this problem. If the leukemia is predominantly megakaryoblastic with myelofibrosis, we suggest the term "acute megakaryoblastic leukemia with myelofibrosis." If the process is a panmyelopathy with myelofibrosis, we suggest the term "acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis."
Since its introduction in 1983, numerous studies have documented the clinical utility of the FAB classification of MDS for predicting prognosis and evolution to acute leukemia.23,60-63 In essence, these studies have validated the contributions of a morphologic classification scheme for MDS that incorporates a careful assessment of the number of blasts in the blood and bone marrow and of the cell lineages that are affected by the neoplastic process.23 The WHO classification incorporates many of the concepts and
definitions of the FAB system, but it also recognizes recently published data to refine the definition of some subtypes and thus to
improve their clinical relevance. The most important difference between
the WHO and FAB classifications is the lowering of the blast threshold
for the diagnosis of AML from 30% to 20% blasts in the blood or bone
marrow. As a result, the FAB category RAEBT is eliminated from the WHO
proposal (Table 2). Other changes include
a refinement of the definitions for the lower-grade lesions, RA and
RARS, and the addition of a new category, refractory cytopenia with
multilineage dysplasia (RCMD). Two subtypes of RAEB, RAEB-1 with 5% to
9% marrow blasts and RAEB-2 with 10% to 19% marrow blasts, are also
recognized. They take into account data published by the International
MDS Risk Analysis Workshop that patients with 10% or more blasts
in the bone marrow have a worse clinical outcome than do those with
fewer blasts.23 The WHO classification also recognizes the
"5q
In the WHO system, patients with blood or bone marrow specimens that show at least 20% blasts are considered AML, thus eliminating the FAB category RAEBT. The rationale for this change has been described under the "Acute myeloid leukemia" section. The WHO classification refines the definition of RA and RARS and introduces a new category, RCMD (Table 2). The FAB guidelines for RA and RARS are somewhat ambiguous and result in different interpretations by different observers. They state that, in RA and RARS, "morphological abnormalities in the granulocytic and megakaryocytic series identical to those present in the other subtypes of MDS may occasionally be found in varying degrees." But they also note that the "erythroid series is mainly affected ... and the granulocytic and megakaryocytic series almost always appear normal."5 However narrowly or loosely one interprets these criteria, in practice and in published series RA and RARS include a heterogeneous population of patients, ranging from those with unilineage dysplasia restricted to the erythroid cells to those also manifesting severe dysplasia in the granulocytic and megakaryocytic lineages. A number of studies have shown that, in cases diagnosed as RA or RARS by FAB criteria, the finding of multilineage dysplasia imparts a worse prognosis than if only erythroid dysplasia is present. In RARS, patients with dysplasia restricted to the erythroid series have signs, symptoms, and complications related mainly to anemia, whereas patients with RARS and multilineage dysplasia may also experience complications related to granulocyte or platelet abnormalities.64,65 Those with only dyserythropoiesis are reported to have longer survival times and a lower rate of transformation to AML and, in contrast to those with multilineage dysplasia, the risk of transformation may not increase significantly throughout the course of the disease.64 These findings suggest that RARS with unilineage dysplasia is, in most cases, a different disease than RARS with multilineage dysplasia. Similar data are available to indicate that RA, as defined by FAB guidelines, is likewise heterogeneous. In contrast to patients with RA and only dyserythropoiesis, patients with multilineage dysplasia have bicytopenia or pancytopenia, a higher incidence of cytogenetic abnormalities, more frequent progression to AML, and shorter survival.66-69 In the WHO classification, RA and RARS are defined as diseases in
which dysplasia is morphologically restricted to the erythroid lineage
(Table 2). If there is multilineage dysplasia A study by Nosslinger et al has taken exception to the WHO proposal in regard to the benefit of further subtyping RA and RARS patients according to the finding of multilineage dysplasia. In their study, patients with RCMD had a better survival than did those with RA or RARS.70 However, in that study, not only were the WHO criteria for RCMD not used but a number of patients classified as having RA and RARS had neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia, which would not be expected if these diseases were also defined by the WHO criteria. An important problem in this group of diseases is the possibility of misdiagnosis of MDS due to overinterpretation of dyspoiesis that is secondary to a nonclonal disorder. This is particularly problematic in the diagnosis of RA. Erythroid dysplasia is difficult to define precisely, and the threshold for its recognition is variable from one observer to another. The WHO classification does not entirely eliminate this problem, but the establishment of minimal quantitative thresholds of dysplasia for RA, RARS, RCMD, and RCMD-RS should result in more consistency and accuracy in diagnosis. Whether RARS with unilineage erythroid dysplasia, as defined in the WHO classification, is a myelodysplastic disorder remains to be determined. However, until more reliable markers of erythroid dysplasia are widely available, the category of RA will likely continue to include some cases that are nonclonal erythroid disorders. In addition, occasional patients may present with cytopenias affecting more than one cell lineage and have multilineage dysplasia but not at the 10% level required for a diagnosis of RCMD. If blasts are fewer than 5% in the bone marrow, such cases are difficult to classify or even to recognize as MDS with confidence. In cases like these a presumptive diagnosis of RCMD might be appropriate. However, in such cases as well as for cases suspected to be RA, if there is no evidence of clonality by genetic studies, the WHO recommends observation for 6 months prior to making a diagnosis of MDS. RAEB is divided into 2 subgroups, RAEB-1 and RAEB-2, depending on the number of blasts in the blood and bone marrow (Table 2). Data from the International Workshop on Prognostic Factors in MDS indicated that patients with 10% or more blasts in the bone marrow have a shorter median survival and a higher rate of transformation to acute leukemia than do those with fewer than 10% blasts.23 In view of these data, the WHO classification recognizes 2 groups of patients with RAEB, RAEB-1 and RAEB-2, depending on the percentage of blasts in the blood and marrow and the presence or absence of Auer rods. The criteria for each subgroup are outlined in Table 2. One myelodysplastic syndrome is defined by a specific cytogenetic
abnormality, the 5q Although deletions of 5q may be observed in a wide spectrum of de
novo and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemias and myelodysplastic processes, the 5q Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia is eliminated from the MDS
category and placed in a group of myeloid disorders with features of
both myelodysplasia and myeloproliferative diseases, MDS/MPD (Table
3; discussion below).
The MDS/MPD category includes myeloid disorders that have both dysplastic and proliferative features at the time of initial presentation and that are difficult to assign to either the myelodysplastic or myeloproliferative group of diseases. The 3 major disorders that constitute this group are chronic myelomonocyic leukemia (CMML), atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML), and juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (Table 3). The WHO classification provides a less restrictive view of these diseases than do previous classification schemes that arbitrarily assigned them to either the MDS or MPD category.5,75 For individual patients, the clinician may view the patient in the context of whether proliferative or dysplastic manifestations predominate and treat accordingly. For cooperative groups and clinical investigators, the WHO category of MDS/MPD may allow for more focused clinical and scientific investigation of these entities that overlap 2 major disease categories. The criteria for the recognition of these disorders are detailed in the WHO monograph, but some aspects of CMML and aCML are particularly problematic and warrant some comment here. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) CMML has generated considerable controversy among a number of investigators as to whether it is primarily a myeloproliferative (MPD) or myelodysplastic (MDS) disease or both.76,77 The FAB group recommended that patients who meet the criteria for the diagnosis of CMML be subdivided into CMML, MDS-like or CMML, MPD-like, depending on the degree of leukocytosis.75 Clinical studies that divided patients according to the FAB suggestions, however, concluded that the magnitude of the white blood cell count does not identify subgroups that have major biologic or prognostic differences.78,79 To date, no specific cytogenetic or molecular differences between patients with predominantly MDS or MPD characteristics have been reported. Furthermore, some patients who initially manifest as having "nonproliferative" CMML, with low white blood cell counts and minimal if any splenomegaly, may eventually become quite "proliferative," with markedly elevated white blood cell counts.78 For these reasons, the WHO committees chose not to divide CMML into these 2 subtypes. To emphasize the nosologic issues, CMML is placed in a separate category of diseases, the name of which clearly states the problem.The WHO classification does not make any significant changes in the
criteria for the diagnosis of CMML (Table
4). Despite the controversy over the
disease category to which CMML belongs, there is one issue about which
all investigators agree: the higher the blast count in CMML, the more
unfavorable the prognosis.77,79-82 As a result, the WHO
divides CMML into 2 prognostic categories, CMML-1 and CMML-2, based on
the number of blasts in the blood and bone marrow (Table 4).
Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML) "Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia" is not an ideal name for any disease, because it implies that the associated disorder is merely an atypical variant of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Instead, aCML lacks the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome and BCR/ABL fusion gene that are the hallmarks of classic CML. In addition, aCML is associated with marked granulocytic and often multilineage dysplasia, which is not observed during the chronic phase of CML. The few clinical studies published to date indicate that aCML is clinically a very aggressive disease, with reported median survival times of only 11 to 18 months.83,84 Although the WHO committees struggled for a better name for aCML to avoid the possibility of confusion with CML, none could be agreed upon. However, the placement of aCML in a different disease category does serve to set it apart from CML.Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML) JMML is a clonal hematopoietic disorder characterized by proliferation principally of the neutrophil and monocytic lineages. It lacks the Ph chromosome and BCR/ABL fusion gene and manifests as a leukemic disorder in infants and young children, although adolescents may occasionally be affected as well. The criteria utilized in the WHO classification for JMML follow the guidelines established by the European Working Group of MDS in Childhood.85 This entity incorporates those leukemias of childhood previously referred to as juvenile chronic myeloid leukemia and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.85 Cases previously referred to as the infantile monosomy 7 syndrome are also included in this category.86If future studies provide more definitive evidence that CMML, atypical CML, or JMML are more accurately classified as purely myelodysplastic or myeloproliferative processes, appropriate changes in their classification will be warranted. In our opinion, at the present time such evidence is not available.
The WHO classification of the chronic myeloproliferative diseases
(CMPDs) recognizes 7 entities (Table 5).
One, CML, is defined not only by its classic morphology and clinical
features but also by the genetic abnormality with which it is always
associated, the Philadelphia chromosome or BCR/ABL fusion
gene. Unfortunately, specific genetic abnormalities have not yet been
identified for any of the other CMPDs. Therefore, the classification of
the CMPDs that lack the BCR/ABL fusion gene requires careful
correlation of morphologic findings in the blood and bone marrow with
clinical and laboratory findings. In particular, the morphologic
findings of the bone marrow biopsy figure prominently in the
recognition of these diseases. Although the WHO criteria for the CMPDs
incorporate recent knowledge and newer disease markers whenever
possible, the criteria established by the PVSG remain integral
components for the diagnosis of some diseases.
To date, no major issues have been raised regarding the WHO proposals for the CMPDs. Nevertheless, some comments at this point regarding nomenclature and criteria may provide a better understanding of the classification of this category of diseases. Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) In the WHO proposal, CML is defined specifically as a myeloproliferative disease that is characterized by the invariable presence of the Ph chromosome or the BCR/ABL fusion gene. Although in most cases the diagnosis is easily made from morphologic evaluation of the blood smear, confirmation by genetic studies is essential, particularly in view of the advent of therapy that targets the BCR/ABL fusion protein.87 The WHO committees relied upon the literature as well as upon the collective experience of the clinical advisory committee members to refine the criteria for accelerated and blast phase88-92 that are outlined in Table 6.
Chronic neutrophilic leukemia (CNL) The major question regarding CNL is whether it is a real disease. Fewer than 150 cases have been reported in the literature, and in a number of these cases CNL was found in association with another neoplasm, particularly myeloma.93-95 In a few of the latter cases, molecular studies showed that the neutrophils were not clonal.96 These latter observations, when coupled with normal cytogenetic studies and the "toxic" neutrophil morphology in most reported cases, raise the possibility that the neutrophilia is due to abnormal cytokine production by an associated tumor or abnormal inflammatory response. However, there are well-characterized cases that do meet the criteria for CNL for which cytogenetic or molecular genetic studies have confirmed clonality of the neutrophil lineage.97-99 In view of these latter reports, the WHO included CNL in the CMPDs, with the recommendation that the possibility of an underlying disease be carefully excluded. If another neoplasm, such as myeloma, is present, the diagnosis of CNL should be made only if there is genetic evidence of a myeloid neoplasm.Chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL)/hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) The decision to list CEL and HES together does not imply that the WHO considers all cases of HES to be clonal myeloproliferative diseases. Rather, it addresses the problem that, in practice, it may be virtually impossible to distinguish between clonal eosinophilia and eosinophilia secondary to abnormal cytokine production for which no etiologic basis is recognized.100-102 The diagnosis of CEL or HES can be made only after a number of infectious, inflammatory, and neoplastic diseases known to be associated with eosinophilia (including CML, AML with inv(16), other CMPDs, T-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and others) have been excluded. Then, if there is no evidence for clonality, the diagnosis of HES is preferred, whereas the finding of a clonal myeloid abnormality would support the diagnosis of CEL.102Chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis (CIMF), prefibrotic stage The criteria classically utilized for the diagnosis of CIMF include a leukoerythroblastic blood smear, organomegaly due to extramedullary hematopoiesis, and myelofibrosis of the bone marrow.103 Recently, some investigators have drawn attention to an early, prefibrotic stage of CIMF, in which the classic findings are absent or minimal.104,105 This early phase of CIMF shares a number of clinical, laboratory, and even morphologic features with the early stages of polycythemia vera (PV) and with essential thrombocythemia (ET). However, the prominent neutrophil proliferation, decreased numbers of erythroid precursors, and marked atypia of the megakaryocytic lineage often aid in distinguishing the prefibrotic stage of CIMF from the other CMPDs. Although these findings must always be correlated with other clinical, laboratory, and genetic studies, the worse survival of CIMF in comparison with ET or PV indicates that recognition of this phase of CIMF is important.
Mast cells originate from a bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell
and demonstrate a number of characteristics that indicate they are
myeloid cells. Mastocytosis includes a heterogeneous group of diseases
characterized by abnormal growth and accumulation of mast cells in one
or more organ systems. Recent data suggest that most variants of
systemic mast cell disease are clonal; a somatic mutation of
KIT, the protooncogene that encodes the tyrosine kinase
receptor for stem cell factor, is usually present.106,107 Although a number of classification schemes have been proposed for mast
cell disease, none have been universally accepted. The WHO
classification (Table 7) is derived from
the Year 2000 Mast Cell Disease Symposium, a conference that brought
together nearly 50 clinicians, pathologists, and investigators whose
primary interest is mast cell disease. The reader is referred to the
published proceedings of that meeting for a detailed analysis of the
formulation of this classification of mast cell
disease.108
The WHO classification of myeloid neoplasms is intended to link previous, predominantly morphologic classification systems with newly emerging scientific data. It incorporates morphologic, biologic, and genetic information into a working nomenclature that has clinical relevance. Although it could be argued that the classification should have been validated in a large series of patients prior to its publication, the concepts and criteria that form its foundation have in fact already been published and tested in the literature. As new information regarding the molecular pathogenesis of myeloid malignancies accumulates and as therapy is devised to target specific molecular abnormalities, the classification of myeloid diseases must evolve to incorporate the new discoveries. Indeed, plans are already underway by the Society for Hematopathology and the European Association of Hematopathology to continually update the classification. We believe that the WHO classification provides a framework to accommodate such changes.
The authors wish to acknowledge the members of the WHO Myeloid Committees: B. Bain (United Kingdom), J. M. Bennett (United States), G. Flandrin (France), D. Head (United States), M. Imbert (France), E. Matutes (United Kingdom), R. Pierre (United States), and J. Thiele (Germany). The authors also thank Dr John Anastasi for his critical review of the manuscript and Ms Elizabeth Lanzl for editorial assistance.
Submitted April 22, 2002; accepted May 30, 2002.
Prepublished online as Blood First Edition Paper, June 21, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1199.
Reprints: James W. Vardiman, University of Chicago Hospitals, 5841 South Maryland Ave, MC 0008, Chicago, IL 60637; e-mail: jvardima{at}uchospitals.edu.
1. Jaffe ES,Harris NL,Stein H,Vardiman JW, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2001.
2.
Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et al.
World Health Organization classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting
3.
Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, et al.
A revised European-American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group.
Blood.
1994;84:1361-1392 4. Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposals for the classification of the acute leukaemias: French-American-British Cooperative Group. Br J Haematol. 1976;33:451-458[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 5. Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. The French-American-British (FAB) Co-operative Group. Proposals for the classification of the myelodysplastic syndromes. Br J Haematol. 1982;51:189-199[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 6. Berlin NI. Diagnosis and classification of the polycythemias. Semin Hematol. 1975;12:339-351[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 7. Murphy S, Peterson P, Iland H, et al. Experience of the Polycythemia Vera Study Group with essential thrombocythemia: a final report on diagnostic criteria, survival and leukemia transition by treatment. Semin Hematol. 1997;34:29-39[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
8.
Sainty D, Liso V, Cantu-Rajnoldi A, et al.
A new morphologic classification system for acute promyelocytic leukemia distinguishes cases with underlying PLZF/RARA gene rearrangements.
Blood.
2000;96:1287-1296 9. Geller RB, Zahurak M, Hurwitz CA, et al. Prognostic importance of immunophenotyping in adults with acute myelocytic leukaemia: the significance of the stem-cell glycoprotein CD34 (My10). Br J Haematol. 1990;76:340-347[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 10. Braylan RC, Orfao A, Borowitz MJ, Davis BH. Optimal number of reagents required to evaluate hematolymphoid neoplasias: results of an international consensus meeting. Cytometry. 2001;46:23-27[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 11. Bain BJ, Barnett D, Linch D, Matutes E, Reilly JT. Revised guideline on immunophenotyping in acute leukemias and chronic lymphoproliferative disorders. Clin Lab Haematol. 2002;24:1-13[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
12.
Arber DA.
Realistic pathologic classification of acute myeloid leukemias.
Am J Clin Pathol.
2001;115:552-560 13. Head DR. Revised classification of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1996;10:1826-1831[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
14.
Leith CP, Kopecky KJ, Godwin J, et al.
Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cytogenetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkable distinct responses to standard chemotherapy. A Southwest Oncology Group study.
Blood.
1997;89:3323-3329
15.
Tallman MS, Andersen JW, Schiffer CA, et al.
All-trans-retinoid acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia.
N Engl J Med.
1997;337:1021-1028
16.
Byrd JC, Dodge RK, Carroll A, et al.
Patients with the t(8;21)(q22;q22) and acute myeloid leukemia have superior failure-free and overall survival when repetitive cycles of high-dose cytarabine are administered.
J Clin Oncol.
1999;17:3767-3775 17. Head DR. Proposed changes in the definitions of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: are they helpful? Curr Opin Oncol. 2002;14:19-23[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
18.
Parker JE, Mufti GJ, Rasool F, Mijovic A, Devereux S, Pagliuca A.
The role of apoptosis, proliferation and the Bcl-2-related proteins in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemias secondary to MDS.
Blood.
2000;96:3932-3938 19. Sonneveld P, van Dongen JJM, Hagemeijer A, et al. High expression of the multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein in high-risk myelodysplasia is associated with immature phenotype. Leukemia. 1993;7:963-969[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 20. Estey E, Pierce S, Kantarjian H, et al. Treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes with AML-type chemotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 1993;11(suppl 2):59-63.
21.
Estey E, Thall P, Beran M, et al.
Effects of diagnosis (refractory anemia with excess blasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation or acute myeloid leukemia [AML]) on outcome of AML-type chemotherapy.
Blood.
1997;90:2969-2977 22. Bernstein SH, Brunetto VL, Davey FR. Acute myeloid leukemia-type chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients without antecedent cytopenias having myelodysplastic syndromes as defined by French-American-British criteria: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2486-2494[Abstract].
23.
Greenberg P, Cox C, Le Beau MM, et al.
International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes.
Blood.
1997;89:2079-2088
24.
Grimwade D, Walker H, Oliver F, et al.
The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1,612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial.
Blood.
1998;92:2322-2333 25. Mrozek K, Heinonen K, Bloomfield CD. Prognostic value of cytogenetic findings in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Int J Hematol. 2000;72:261-271[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
26.
Slovak ML, Kopecky KJ, Cassileth PA, et al.
Karyotypic analysis predicts outcome of pre-remission and post-remission therapy in adult acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study.
Blood.
2000;96:4075-4083
27.
Pedersen-Bjergaard J, Andersen MK, Christiansen DH, Nerlov N.
Genetic pathways in therapy-related myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukemia.
Blood.
2002;99:1909-1912 28. Rowley JD, Olney HJ. International workshop on the relationship of prior therapy to balanced chromosome aberrations in therapy-related leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes and acute leukemia: overview report. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002;33:331-345[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
29.
Shurtleff SA, Meyers S, Hiebert SW, et al.
Heterogeneity in CBF
30.
Mrozek K, Prior TW, Edwards C, et al.
Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study.
J Clin Oncol.
2001;19:2482-2492
31.
Costello R, Sainty D, Lecine P, et al.
Detection of CBF 32. Brito-Babapulle F, Catovsky D, Galton DAG. Clinical and laboratory features of de novo acute myeloid leukaemia with trilineage myelodysplasia. Br J Haematol. 1987;66:445-450[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 33. Jinnai I, Tomonaga M, Kuriyama K, et al. Dysmegakaryocytopoiesis in acute leukaemias: its predominance in myelomonocytic (M4) leukaemia and implication for poor response to chemotherapy. Br J Haematol. 1987;66:467-472[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 34. Goasguen JE, Matsuo T, Cox C, Bennett JM. Evaluation of the dysmyelopoiesis in 336 patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: major importance of dysgranulopoiesis for remission and survival. Leukemia. 1992;6:520-525[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 35. Gahn B, Haase D, Unterhalt M, et al. De novo AML with dysplastic hematopoiesis: cytogenetic and prognostic significance. Leukemia. 1996;10:946-951[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
36.
Michels SD, McKenna RW, Arthur DC, Brunning RD.
Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: a clinical and morphologic study of 65 cases.
Blood.
1985;65:1364-1372
37.
Le Beau MM, Albain KS, Larson RA, et al.
Clinical and cytogenetic correlations in 63 patients with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute nonlymphocytic leukemia: further evidence for characteristic abnormalities of chromosomes no. 5 and 7.
J Clin Oncol.
1986;4:325-345 38. Larson RA, Le Beau MM, Vardiman JW, Rowley JD. Myeloid leukemia after hematotoxins. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104(suppl 6):1303-1307. 39. Karp JE, Sarkodee-Adoo CB. Therapy-related acute leukemia. Clin Lab Med. 2000;20:71-79[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 40. Andersen MK, Christiansen DH, Kirchhoff M, Pedersen-Bjergaard J. Duplication or amplification of chromosome band 11q23, including the unrearranged MLL gene, is a recurrent abnormality in therapy-related MDS and AML, and is closely related to mutation of the TP53 gene and to previous therapy with alkylating agents. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2001;31:33-41[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
41.
Ratain MJ, Kaminer LS, Bitran JD, et al.
Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia following etoposide and cisplatin combination chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung.
Blood.
1987;70:1412-1416
42.
Larson RA, Le Beau MM, Ratain MJ, Rowley JD.
Balanced translocations involving chromosome bands 11q23 and 21q22 in therapy-related leukemia.
Blood.
1982;79:1892-1893
43.
Pedersen-Bjergaard J, Philip P.
Balanced translocations involving chromosome bands 11q23 and 21q22 are highly characteristic of myelodysplasia and leukemia following therapy with cytostatic agents targeting at DNA-topoisomerase II.
Blood.
1991;78:1147-1148 44. Pui CH, Ribeiro R, Hancock ML, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in children treated with epipodophyllotoxins for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1682-1687[Abstract]. 45. Secker-Walker LM, Moorman AV, Bain BJ, Mehta AB. Secondary acute leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome with 11q23 abnormalities. EU Concerted Action 11q23 Workshop. Leukemia. 1998;12:840-844[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 46. Bloomfield C, Archer KJ, Mrozek K, et al. 11q23 balanced chromosome aberrations in treatment-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute leukemia: report from an international workshop. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002;33:362-378[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 47. Garand R, Duchayne E, Blanchard D, et al. Minimally differentiated erythroleukaemia (AML M6 `variant'): a rare subset of AML distinct from AML M6. Br J Haematol. 1995;90:868-875[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 48. Kowal-Vern A, Mazzella FM, Cotelingam JD, Shrit MA, Rector JT, Schumacher HR. Diagnosis and characterization of acute erythroleukemia subsets by determining the percentages of myeloblasts and proerythroblasts in 69 cases. Am J Hematol. 2000;65:5-13[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 49. Shichishima T. Minimally differentiated erythroleukemia: recognition of erythroid precursors and progenitors. Intern Med. 2000;39:761-762[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
50.
Hasserjian RP, Howard H, Wood A, Henry K, Bain B.
Acute erythremic myelosis (true erythroleukaemia): a variant of AML FAB-M6.
J Clin Pathol.
2001;54:205-209 51. Muroi K, Tarumoto T, Akioka T, et al. Sialyl-Tn- and neuron-specific enolase-positive minimally differentiated erythroleukemia. Intern Med. 2000;39:843-846[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 52. DiGuglielmo G. La Malattie Eritremiche ed Eritroleucemiche. Rome: II Pensiero Scientifico Editore; 1962. 53. Sultan C, Sigaux F, Imbert M, Reyes F. Acute myelodysplasia with myelofibrosis: a report of eight cases. Br J Haematol. 1981;49:11-15[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 54. Imbert M, Nguyen D, Sultan C. Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemias (AML) with myelofibrosis. Leuk Res. 1992;16:51-54[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 55. Fabich DR, Raich PC. Acute myelofibrosis: a report of three cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1977;67:334-336[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 56. Bearman RM, Pangalis GA, Rappaport HR. Acute ("malignant") myelosclerosis. Cancer. 1979;43:279-284[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 57. Lewis SM, Szur MB. Malignant myelosclerosis. Br Med J. 1963;ii:472-473. 58. Den Ottolander GJ, Te Velde J, Brederoo P, et al. Megakaryoblastic leukaemia (acute myelofibrosis): a report of three cases. Br J Haematol 1979;42:9-12[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 59. Hruban RH, Kuhajda FP, Mann RB. Acute myelofibrosis: immunohistochemical study of four cases and comparison with acute megakaryoblastic leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol. 1987;88:578-588[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 60. Coiffier B, Adeleine P, Viala JJ, Byron P. Dysmyelopoietic syndromes: a search for prognostic factors in 193 patients. Cancer. 1983;52:83-90[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 61. Vallespi T, Torrabadella M, Julia A, Irriguible D. A study of 101 cases according to the FAB classification. Br J Haematol. 1985;61:83-92[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 62. Kerkhofs H, Hermans J, Haak HL, Leeksma C. Utility of the FAB classification for myelodysplastic syndromes: investigation of prognostic factors in 237 cases. Br J Haematol. 1987;65:73-81[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 63. Third MIC Cooperative Study Group. Recommendations for a morphologic, immunologic and cytogenetic (MIC) working classification of the primary and therapy related myelodysplastic disorders. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1988;32:1-10[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 64. Gattermann N, Aul C, Schneider W. Two types of acquired idiopathic sideroblastic anaemia (AISA). Br J Haematol. 1990;74:45-52[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 65. Germing U, Gattermann N, Aivado M, Hildebrandt B, Aul C. Two types of acquired idiopathic sideroblastic anaemia (AISA): a time-tested distinction. B J Haematol. 2000;108:724-728[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 66. Michels S, Chan W, Jakubowski D, Vogler R. Unclassifiable myelodysplastic syndrome: a study of sixteen cases with a proposal for a new subtype [abstract]. Lab Invest. 1990;62:67. 67. Rosati S, Mick R, Xu F, et al. Refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia: further characterization of an "unclassifiable" myelodysplastic syndrome. Leukemia. 1996;10:20-26[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 68. Balduini CL, Guarnone R, Pecci A, Centenara E, Ascari E. Multilineage dysplasia without increased blasts identifies a poor prognosis subset of myelodysplastic syndromes [letter]. Leukemia. 1998;12:1655-1656[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 69. Germing U, Gattermann N, Strupp C, Aivado M, Aul C. Validation of the WHO proposals for a new classification of primary myelodysplastic syndromes: a retrospective analysis of 1600 patients. Leuk Res. 2000;24:983-992[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
70.
Nosslinger T, Raisner R, Koller E, et al.
Myelodysplastic syndromes, from French-American-British to World Health Organization: comparison of classifications on 431 unselected patients from a single institution.
Blood.
2001;98:2935-2941 71. Lai F, Godley LA, Joslin J, et al. Transcript map and comparative analysis of the 1.5-Mb commonly deleted segment of human 5q31 in malignant myeloid diseases with a del(5q). Genomics. 2001;71:235-245[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
72.
Boultwood J, Strickson AJ, Jabs EW, Cheng JF, Fidler C, Wainscoat JS.
Physical mapping of the human ATX1 homologue (HAH1) to the critical region of the 5q 73. Van den Berghe H, Cassiman JJ, David G, Fryns JP, Michaux JL, Sokal G. Distinct haematological disorder with deletion of the long arm of no. 5 chromosome. Nature. 1974;251:437-441[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
74.
Boultwood J, Lewis S, Wainscoat JS.
The 5q 75. Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. The chronic myeloid leukemias: guidelines for distinguishing the chronic granulocytic, atypical chronic myeloid and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemias. Br J Haematol. 1994;87:746-754[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 76. Michaux JL, Martiat P. Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML): a myelodysplastic or myeloproliferative syndrome? Leuk Lymphoma. 1993;9:35-41[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 77. Groupe Francais de Cytogenetique Hematologique. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: single entity or heterogeneous disorder? A prospective multicenter study of 100 patients. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1991;55:57-65[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
78.
Germing U, Gattermann N, Minning H, Heyll A, Aul C.
Problems in the classification of CMML
79.
Onida F, Kantarjian HM, Smith TL, et al.
Prognostic factors in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: a retrospective analysis of 213 patients.
Blood.
2002;99:840-849 80. Fenaux P, Jouet JP, Zandecki M. Chronic and subacute myelomonocytic leukemia in the adult: a report of 60 cases with special reference to prognostic factors. Br J Haematol. 1987;65:101-106[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 81. Stornilio AM, Moloney WC, Rosenthal DS, Cox C, Bennett JM. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Leukemia. 1989;4:766-770. 82. Tefferi A, Hoagland HC, Therneau TM, Pierre RV. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: natural history and prognostic determinants. Mayo Clin Proc. 1989;64:1246-1254[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 83. Shepherd PC, Ganesan TS, Galton DA. Haematological classification of the chronic myeloid leukaemias. Baillieres Clin Haematol. 1987;1:887-906[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
84.
Hernandez JM, del Canizo MC, Cuneo A, et al.
Clinical, hematological and cytogenetic characteristics of atypical chronic myeloid leukemia.
Ann Oncol.
2000;11:441-444
85.
Niemeyer CM, Fenu S, Hasle H, Mann G, Stary J, van Wering ER.
Differentiating juvenile myelomoncytic leukemia from infectious disease.
Blood.
1998;91:365-367 86. Hasle H, Arico M, Basso G, et al. Myelodysplastic syndrome, juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia associated with complete or partial monsomy 7. European Working Group on MDS in Childhood (EWOG-MDS). Leukemia. 1999;13:376-385[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 87. Druker BJ, Lydon NB. Lessons learned from the development of an abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor for chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2000;105:3-7[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 88. Cervantes F, Lopez-Guillermo A, Bosch F, Terol MJ, Rozman C, Montserrat E. An assessment of the clinico-hematological criteria for the accelerated phase of chronic myeloid leukemia. Eur J Haematol. 1996;57:286-291[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 89. Savage DG, Szydlo RM, Chase A, Apperley JF, Goldman JM. Bone marrow transplantation for chronic myeloid leukaemia: the effects of differing criteria for defining chronic phase on probabilities of survival and relapse. Br J Haematol. 1997;99:30-35[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
90.
Kantarjian HM, Deisseroth A, Kurzrock R, Estrov Z, Talpaz M.
Chronic myelogenous leukemia: a concise update.
Blood.
1993;82:691-703 91. Brunning RD, McKenna RW. Tumors of the Bone Marrow. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1994. 92. Cortes JE, Talpaz M, Kantarjian H. Chronic myelogenous leukemia: a review. Am J Med. 1996;100:555-570[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 93. Tursz T, Flandrin G, Brouet JC, et al. Coexistence d'un myelome et une leucemie granuleuse en absence de tout traitement: etude de quatre observations [Coexistence of a myeloma and a granulocytic leukemia in the absence of any treatment: study of 4 cases]. Nouv Rev Fr Hematol. 1974;14:693-704.
94.
Standen GR, Jasani B, Wagstaff M, et al.
Chronic neutrophilic leukemia and multiple myeloma: an association with 95. Cehreli C, Undar B, Akkoc N, et al. Coexistence of chronic neutrophilic leukemia with light chain myeloma. Acta Haematol. 1994;91:32-34[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
96.
Standen GR, Steers FJ, Jones L.
Clonality of chronic neutrophilic leukaemia associated with myeloma: analysis using the X-linked probe M 27 97. Froberg MK, Brunning RD, Dorion P, et al. Demonstration of clonality in neutrophils using FISH in a case of chronic neutrophilic leukemia. Leukemia. 1998;12:623-626[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 98. Yanagiasawa K, Ohminami H, Sata M, et al. Neoplastic involvement of granulocytic lineage, not granulocytic-monocytic, monocytic or erythrocytic lineage, in a patient with chronic neutrophilic leukemia. Am J Hematol. 1998;57:221-224[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 99. Di Donata C, Croci G, Lazzari S, et al. Chronic neutrophilic leukemia: description of a new case with karyotypic abnormalities. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;85:369-371[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 100. Chusid MJ, Dale DC, West BC, Wolff SM. The hypereosinophilic syndrome: analysis of fourteen cases with review of the literature. Medicine. 1975;54:1-27[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
101.
Schooley RT, Flaum MA, Gralnick HR, Fauci AS.
A clinicopathologic correlation of the idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome. II. Clinical manifestations.
Blood.
1981;58:1021-1026 102. Bain BJ. Eosinophilic leukaemias and the idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome. Br J Haematol. 1996;95:2-9[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 103. Ward HP, Block MH. The natural history of agnogenic myeloid metaplasia (AMM) and a critical evaluation of its relationship with the myeloproliferative syndrome. Medicine. 1971;50:357-420[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 104. Georgi A, Buesche G, Kreft A. The histopathology of chronic myeloproliferative diseases. Baillieres Clin Haematol. 1998;11:721-749[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
105.
Thiele J, Kvasnicka HM, Boeltken B, Zankovich R, Diehl V, Fischer R.
Initial (prefibrotic) stages of idiopathic (primary) myelofibrosis (IMF) 106. Boissan M, Feger F, Guillosson JJ, Arock M. c-Kit and c-kit mutations in mastocytosis and other hematological diseases. J Leukoc Biol. 2000;67:135-148[Abstract].
107.
Longley BJ, Metcalfe DD, Tharp M, et al.
Activating and dominant inactivating c-KIT catalytic domain mutations in distinct clinical forms of human mastocytosis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1999;96:1609-1614 108. Valent P, Horny HP, Escribano L, et al. Diagnostic criteria and classification of mastocytosis: a consensus proposal. Leuk Res. 2001;25:603-625[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].   CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
Related Letter in Blood Online:
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
a system that is now used worldwide. To
date, however, there has been no published explanation or rationale
given for the WHO classification of the myeloid neoplasms. The purpose
of this communication is to outline briefly the WHO
classification of malignant myeloid diseases, to draw attention
to major differences between it and antecedent classification schemes,
and to provide the rationale for those differences.
(Blood. 2002;100:2292-2302)
/MYH11 (inv(16) or t(16;16)) by molecular and/or cytogenetic techniques is
reported to correlate with the morphologic diagnosis of M4Eo in 30% to
100% of cases.
syndrome" as a unique, narrowly defined entity. Lastly,
because of the controversy as to whether chronic myelomonocytic
leukemia (CMML) is a myelodysplastic or a myeloproliferative disease,
this disorder has been placed in a newly created disease group,
MDS/MPD.
light chain expression.
Cancer.
1990;66:162-163
