Photo Credit: Wildpixel

The following is a summary of the article “Definitions of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and their clinical significance according to the WHO 2022 and ICC classification” by Donata Backhaus et al (University of Leipzig Medical Center, Germany), which is part of the Proceedings of the fourth European Congress controversies in Leukemias, held in Brussels, Belgium, 20-21 November, 2023.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) classification has long been the cornerstone of diagnosing and treating this challenging hematologic malignancy. Over the years, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification has provided a comprehensive framework integrating clinical, morphological, immunophenotypic, and genetic features. With advancements in our understanding of AML biology, revisions to the classification are necessary every 5 to 10 years.

The collaboration between the WHO, leading hematopathologists, oncologists, hematologists, and geneticists has historically driven these updates, ensuring widespread acceptance and use. However, the release of the fifth edition in 2022 marked a divergence from this tradition, opting for informed bibliometrics over the Clinical Advisory Committee (CAC) model. This shift sparked debates, leading to the organization of a separate CAC in 2020, whose findings culminated in the creation of the International Consensus Classification of Myeloid and Lymphoid Neoplasms (ICC).

Consequently, we now find ourselves in a landscape with two competing classification systems for AML, each with its nuances and implications for patient care. In our comprehensive analysis, we delve into the similarities and differences between the WHO 2022 and ICC classifications, shedding light on their impact on accurate patient diagnoses and risk stratification.

One of the key areas of contention lies in defining the boundary between myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and AML. While both classifications retained the 20% blast threshold for AML diagnosis, the introduction of the MDS/AML category by the ICC highlights the biological continuum between these diseases and the need for tailored therapeutic approaches.

Furthermore, the inclusion of AML-defining genetic abnormalities underwent significant expansions, reflecting our evolving knowledge of AML genetics. However, discrepancies in defining genetic subgroups and blast thresholds underscore the complexities of disease classification.

Real-world assessments of the WHO 2022 and ICC classifications reveal shifts in patient allocation and prognostic implications. Despite a high degree of congruence, discrepancies in defining genetic subgroups and AML-MR highlight areas of ongoing debate and potential refinement.

Moreover, the implications of these classifications extend to risk stratification systems such as the European LeukemiaNet 2022, where adjustments reflect the evolving landscape of AML biology and prognosis.

In conclusion, while both the WHO 2022 and ICC classifications represent significant advancements in AML classification, their coexistence presents challenges in clinical practice and research. Moving forward, efforts to reconcile discrepancies and foster a unified classification system are essential to advance patient care and streamline international collaboration in AML research and treatment.