Assessment of bone marrow involvement in patients with lymphoma: report on a consensus meeting of the Korean Society of Hematology Lymphoma Working Party.

In September 2011, the Korean Society of Hematology Lymphoma Working Party held a nationwide conference to establish a consensus for assessing bone marrow (BM) involvement in patients with lymphoma. At this conference, many clinicians, hematopathologists, and diagnostic hematologists discussed various topics for a uniform consensus in the evaluation process to determine whether the BM is involved. Now that the discussion has matured sufficiently to be published, we herein describe the consensus reached and limitations in current methods for assessing BM involvement in patients with lymphoma.

[Second expert review on lymphoma: assessment of a one year activity in a general hospital]. / Expertise systématique des lymphomes diagnostiqués au cours d'une année d'activité d'un centre hospitalier : évaluation.

A standardized second histological review for lymphomas was established by the French National Cancer Institute in 2010. The objective of our study was to assess the clinical impact of this process between a general hospital (reader 1) and an expert (reader 2). This prospective study was conducted between April 1st 2010 and April 1st 2011. Fifty-four cases of lymphoma were subjected to an expert review following the "LYMPHOPATH" recommendations and diagnoses of readers 1 and 2 were compared according to the WHO 2008 classification of lymphomas. We distinguished serious discrepancies (lymphoma versus other malignancy) from subtyping disagreement with or without impact on therapeutic strategy. We also determined the delays between the initial reception of the sample and reader 1's (period A) and reader 2's (period B) reports, respectively. Any additional analysis performed by second reader was also reported. Our study revealed one case of subtyping discordance (1.85%). The mean delays were 7 days for period A and 20 days for period B, respectively. Additional immunohistochemical techniques were requested by reader 2 in 11 cases (20.4%). These data provide evidence to suggest that in our department, a second review targeted on difficult diagnoses, rare lymphomas or when further analyses are required would be more relevant than a standardized second review.