Lloyd Steele1, Sarah Zbeidy1, Jason Thomson2, Carsten Flohr3. 1. Department of Dermatology, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. 2. Department of Dermatology, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 3. Unit for Population-Based Dermatology Research, St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London and Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) classification separates vascular anomalies into vascular malformations and vascular tumors. However, misdiagnoses and misperceptions still persist around the use of the term "hemangioma." We assessed whether the term "haemangioma" (British spelling) was used as part of ISSVA terminology in the literature. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all English-language publications containing the British spelling "haemangioma" in the title or abstract from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Each paper was judged by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by senior review. RESULTS: By the standard of the 2014 ISSVA classification, 126/195 (64.6%) publications used incorrect terminology for vascular anomalies. This was reduced to 118/195 (60.5%) when using the 2018 ISSVA classification. The most commonly misused terms were cavernous haemangioma (27.1%), haemangioma without further specification (26.3%), and hepatic/liver haemangioma (12.7%). Age was a significant predictor of accuracy of terminology (P = 0.01), with a higher accuracy in children. Correct usage also varied by the site of the vascular anomaly, being highest for lesions of the skin (76.5%) followed by muscle (58.3%), soft tissue (23.5%), bone (21.4%), viscera (7.7%), and eye (0.0%) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The term "haemangioma" is frequently used incorrectly by the standards of the 2014 and 2018 ISSVA classifications. Correct terminology is important as the natural history and treatment options vary depending on the type of vascular anomaly.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) classification separates vascular anomalies into vascular malformations and vascular tumors. However, misdiagnoses and misperceptions still persist around the use of the term "hemangioma." We assessed whether the term "haemangioma" (British spelling) was used as part of ISSVA terminology in the literature. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all English-language publications containing the British spelling "haemangioma" in the title or abstract from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Each paper was judged by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by senior review. RESULTS: By the standard of the 2014 ISSVA classification, 126/195 (64.6%) publications used incorrect terminology for vascular anomalies. This was reduced to 118/195 (60.5%) when using the 2018 ISSVA classification. The most commonly misused terms were cavernous haemangioma (27.1%), haemangioma without further specification (26.3%), and hepatic/liver haemangioma (12.7%). Age was a significant predictor of accuracy of terminology (P = 0.01), with a higher accuracy in children. Correct usage also varied by the site of the vascular anomaly, being highest for lesions of the skin (76.5%) followed by muscle (58.3%), soft tissue (23.5%), bone (21.4%), viscera (7.7%), and eye (0.0%) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The term "haemangioma" is frequently used incorrectly by the standards of the 2014 and 2018 ISSVA classifications. Correct terminology is important as the natural history and treatment options vary depending on the type of vascular anomaly.
Authors: Rachel N Andrews; Ethan G Bloomer; John D Olson; David B Hanbury; Gregory O Dugan; Christopher T Whitlow; J Mark Cline Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.841