Purpose: Lymphoid malignancies are remarkably heterogeneous, with variations in outcomes and clinical, biologic, and histologic presentation complicating classification according to the World Health Organization guidelines. Incorrect classification of lymphoid neoplasms can result in suboptimal therapeutic strategies for individual patients and confound the interpretation of clinical trials involving personalized, class-based treatments. This review discusses the potential role of pathology informatics in improving the classification accuracy and objectivity for lymphoid malignancies. Design: We identified peer-reviewed publications examining pathology informatics approaches for the classification of lymphoid malignancies, reviewed developments in the lymphoma classification systems, and summarized computational methods for pathologic assessment that can impact practice. Results: Computer-assisted pathology image analysis algorithms in lymphoma most commonly have been applied to follicular lymphoma to address biologic heterogeneity and subjectivity in the process of classification. Conclusion: Objective methods are available to assist pathologists in lymphoma classification and grading, and have been demonstrated to provide measurable benefits in specific contexts. Future validation and extension of these approaches will require datasets that link high resolution pathology images available for image analysis algorithms with clinical variables and follow up outcomes.
Purpose: Lymphoid malignancies are remarkably heterogeneous, with variations in outcomes and clinical, biologic, and histologic presentation complicating classification according to the World Health Organization guidelines. Incorrect classification of lymphoid neoplasms can result in suboptimal therapeutic strategies for individual patients and confound the interpretation of clinical trials involving personalized, class-based treatments. This review discusses the potential role of pathology informatics in improving the classification accuracy and objectivity for lymphoid malignancies. Design: We identified peer-reviewed publications examining pathology informatics approaches for the classification of lymphoid malignancies, reviewed developments in the lymphoma classification systems, and summarized computational methods for pathologic assessment that can impact practice. Results: Computer-assisted pathology image analysis algorithms in lymphoma most commonly have been applied to follicular lymphoma to address biologic heterogeneity and subjectivity in the process of classification. Conclusion: Objective methods are available to assist pathologists in lymphoma classification and grading, and have been demonstrated to provide measurable benefits in specific contexts. Future validation and extension of these approaches will require datasets that link high resolution pathology images available for image analysis algorithms with clinical variables and follow up outcomes.
Authors: Andrew H Beck; Ankur R Sangoi; Samuel Leung; Robert J Marinelli; Torsten O Nielsen; Marc J van de Vijver; Robert B West; Matt van de Rijn; Daphne Koller Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: A A Alizadeh; M B Eisen; R E Davis; C Ma; I S Lossos; A Rosenwald; J C Boldrick; H Sabet; T Tran; X Yu; J I Powell; L Yang; G E Marti; T Moore; J Hudson; L Lu; D B Lewis; R Tibshirani; G Sherlock; W C Chan; T C Greiner; D D Weisenburger; J O Armitage; R Warnke; R Levy; W Wilson; M R Grever; J C Byrd; D Botstein; P O Brown; L M Staudt Journal: Nature Date: 2000-02-03 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Matthew McKinney; Andrea B Moffitt; Philippe Gaulard; Marion Travert; Laurence De Leval; Alina Nicolae; Mark Raffeld; Elaine S Jaffe; Stefania Pittaluga; Liqiang Xi; Tayla Heavican; Javeed Iqbal; Karim Belhadj; Marie Helene Delfau-Larue; Virginie Fataccioli; Magdalena B Czader; Izidore S Lossos; Jennifer R Chapman-Fredricks; Kristy L Richards; Yuri Fedoriw; Sarah L Ondrejka; Eric D Hsi; Lawrence Low; Dennis Weisenburger; Wing C Chan; Neha Mehta-Shah; Steven Horwitz; Leon Bernal-Mizrachi; Christopher R Flowers; Anne W Beaven; Mayur Parihar; Lucile Baseggio; Marie Parrens; Anne Moreau; Pierre Sujobert; Monika Pilichowska; Andrew M Evens; Amy Chadburn; Rex K H Au-Yeung; Gopesh Srivastava; William W L Choi; John R Goodlad; Igor Aurer; Sandra Basic-Kinda; Randy D Gascoyne; Nicholas S Davis; Guojie Li; Jenny Zhang; Deepthi Rajagopalan; Anupama Reddy; Cassandra Love; Shawn Levy; Yuan Zhuang; Jyotishka Datta; David B Dunson; Sandeep S Davé Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Adam M Petrich; Mitul Gandhi; Borko Jovanovic; Jorge J Castillo; Saurabh Rajguru; David T Yang; Khushboo A Shah; Jeremy D Whyman; Frederick Lansigan; Francisco J Hernandez-Ilizaliturri; Lisa X Lee; Stefan K Barta; Shruthi Melinamani; Reem Karmali; Camille Adeimy; Scott Smith; Neil Dalal; Chadi Nabhan; David Peace; Julie Vose; Andrew M Evens; Namrata Shah; Timothy S Fenske; Andrew D Zelenetz; Daniel J Landsburg; Christina Howlett; Anthony Mato; Michael Jaglal; Julio C Chavez; Judy P Tsai; Nishitha Reddy; Shaoying Li; Caitlin Handler; Christopher R Flowers; Jonathon B Cohen; Kristie A Blum; Kevin Song; Haowei Linda Sun; Oliver Press; Ryan Cassaday; Jesse Jaso; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Aliyah R Sohani; Jeremy S Abramson Journal: Blood Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Chao Wang; Thierry Pécot; Debra L Zynger; Raghu Machiraju; Charles L Shapiro; Kun Huang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: R Andrew Harkins; Andres Chang; Sharvil P Patel; Michelle J Lee; Jordan S Goldstein; Selin Merdan; Christopher R Flowers; Jean L Koff Journal: Expert Rev Hematol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 2.929