Summary
Diagnostic reproducibility of the FAB morphological subtypes of acute leukemia is a basic step in the assessment of the clinical outcome in multicenter trials. Unusual cytologic variables and slightly different interpretations of the FAB morphological criteria have been the most significant factors affecting the overall diagnostic concordance rate among the various centers. An evaluation of the diagnostic concurrence between 35 institutions of the Italian Cooperative Study Group GIMEMA and two reviewers of the ad hoc morphological committee has been performed on 377 patients entering the AML 8A and AML 8B GIMEMA protocols. Overall concordance rate was 62.6%. The most significant differences were observed for M2 vs M4, M4 vs M5, M1 vs M2, and M2 vs M5 subtypes. In order to minimize the impact of some diagnostic deviations on the mean cytologic concordance rate, a distinction between “major” and “minor” discrepancies in the diagnostic procedures has been proposed. When the results of the single institutions were corrected by considering the “major” discrepancies only, a mean diagnostic agreement of 78.1% was reached.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bain BJ (1990) Leukemia diagnosis. A guide to FAB classification. Gower Medical, London
Bennett JM, Begg CB (1981) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study of the cytochemistry of adult acute myeloid leukemia by correlation of subtypes with response and survival. Cancer Res 41: 4833–4837
Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel M-T, Flandrin G, Galton DAG, Gralnick HR, Sultan C (1985) Criteria for the diagnosis of acute leukaemia of megakaryocyte lineage (M7). Ann Intern Med 103: 460–462
Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel M-T, Flandrin G, Galton DAG, Gralnick HR, Sultan C (1985) Proposed revised criteria for the classification of acute myeloid leukaemias. Ann Intern Med 103: 620–625
Brito-Babapulle F, Catovksy D, Galton DAG (1987) Clinical and laboratory features of de novo acute myeloid leukaemia with trilineage myelodysplasia. Br J Haematol 66: 445–450
Castoldi GL, Cuneo A, Lanza F, Tomasi P (1992) Diagnosis of leukemia: morphology. Leukemia [Suppl 4] 6: 6–9
Catovsky D, Matutes E, Buccheri V, Shetty V, Hanslip J, Yoshida N, Morilla R (1991) A classification of acute leukaemia for the 1990s. Ann Hematol 2: 16–21
Cuneo A, Michaux J-L, Ferrant A, Van Hove L, Bosly A, Stul M, Dal Cin P, Vandenberghe E, Cassiman JJ, Negrini M, Piva N, Castoldi GL, Van den Berghe H (1992) Correlation of cytogenetic patterns and clinico-biological features in adult acute myeloid leukemia expressing lymphoid markers. Blood 179: 720–727
Dick FR, Armitage JO, Burns CP (1982) Diagnostic concurrence in the subclassification of the adult leukemias using French-American-British criteria. Cancer 49: 916–920
Drexler HG (1987) Classification of acute myeloid leukemias. A comparison of FAB and immunophenotyping. Leukemia 1: 697–705
Fagioli F, Cuneo A, Piva N, Carli MG, Previati R, Balboni M, Tomasi P, Cariani D, Scapoli GL, Castoldi GL (1992) Distinct cytogenetic and clinicopathologic features of acute myeloid leukemia after occupational exposure to pesticides and organic solvents. Cancer 70: 77–85
Griffin JD, Davis R, Nelson DA, Davis FR, Mayer RJ, Schiffer C, McIntyre OR, Bloomfield CD (1986) Use of surface marker analysis to predict outcome of adult myeloblastic leukemia. Blood 68: 1232–1241
Hayhoe FGJ (1988) Classification of acute leukemias. Blood Reviews 2: 186–193
Head DR, Cerezo L, Savage RA, Craven CM, Bickers JN, Hartsock R, Hosty TA, Saiki JH, Wilson HE, Morrison FS, Coltman CA, Hutton JJ (1985) Institutional performance in application of the FAB classification of acute leukemia. The Southwest Oncology Group experience Cancer 55: 1979–1986
Koeffler HP (1987) Syndromes of acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. Ann Intern Med 107: 748–758
Kristensen JS, Hokland P (1991) Monoclonal antibodies in myeloid diseases: prognostic use in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res 15: 693–700
Mertelsmann R, Thaler HT, To L, Gee Ts, McKenzie S, Schauer P, Friedman A, Arlin Z, Cirrincione C, Clarkson B (1990) Morphological classification, response to therapy and survival in 263 adult patients with acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 56: 773–781
Neame PB, Soamboonsrup P, Browman GP, Meyer RM, Benger A, Wilson WEC, Walker JR, Saced N, McBride JA (1986) Classifying acute leukemia by immunophenotyping: a combined FAB-immunologic classification of AML. Blood 68: 1355–1376
Ost A, Lagerlof B, Sundstrom C, Lindstrom P, Gyllenhammer H, Engstedt L, Skoog L (1983) A study of the reproducibility of the diagnostic criteria for acute leukaemia. Scand J Haematol 31: 257–266
Second MIC Cooperative Study Group (1988) Morphologic, immunologic and cytogenetic (MIC) working classification of the acute myeloid leukemias. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 30: 1–15
Shibata A, Bennett JM, Castoldi GL, Catovsky D, Flandrin G, Jaffe ES, Katayama I, Nanba K, Schmalzl F, Yam LT, Lewis SM (1985) The International Committee for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH): recommended methods for cytological procedures in haematology. Clin Lab Haematol 7: 55–74
Sultan C, Deregnaucourt J, Ko YW, Imbert M, Ricard d'Agay MF, Gouault-Heilmann M, Brun B (1981) Distribution of 250 cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) according to the FAB classification and response to therapy. Br J Haematol 47: 545–551
Van't Veer MB (1992) The diagnosis of acute leukemia with undifferentiated or minimally differentiated blasts. Ann Hematol 64: 161–165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castoldi, G.L., Liso, V., Fenu, S. et al. Reproducibility of the morphological diagnostic criteria for acute myeloid leukemia: the GIMEMA group experience. Ann Hematol 66, 171–174 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01703231
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01703231