Figarella‐Branger, Dominique

Abstract A working group of cIMPACT-NOW evaluated the literature on IDH-mutant gliomas for opportunities to improve pathology-based risk stratification and grading, especially at the interface of CNS WHO grades 2 and 3, since therapeutic decisions depend on risk assessment for clinical management. The group also evaluated newly described IDH-mutant glioma subgroups and considered multidisciplinary aspects of therapeutic decision-making. PDGFRA amplification was associated with highly aggressive clinical behavior of IDH-mutant astrocytomas, consistent with CNS WHO grade 4. Other genetic alterations associated with intermediate risk and most consistent with CNS WHO grade 3 included PIK3 mutations; EGFR alteration; MYCN amplification; and specific retinoblastoma pathway alterations, including CDK4, CDK6, and CCND2 amplification, RB1 homozygous deletion or mutation, and mutation of CDKN2A. DNA methylation signatures of G-CIMP-low or A_IDH_HG were consistent with CNS WHO grade 3 or 4, depending upon other grading criteria. We suggest a mitotic count of ≥3 per 2.4 mm2 could be considered as a CNS WHO grade 3 criterion. Our review did not uncover features to improve the grading of oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted, although CNS WHO grade 3 tumors with elevated mitotic rates, yet lacking necrosis, microvascular proliferation, CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, and MRI contrast enhancement, may be associated with extended survival. Implementing evidence-based criteria for risk stratification and grading will improve guidance for clinical decision-making.

Abstract cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.

Abstract Major discoveries in the biology of nervous system tumors have raised the question of how non‐histological data such as molecular information can be incorporated into the next W orld H ealth O rganization ( WHO ) classification of central nervous system tumors. To address this question, a meeting of neuropathologists with expertise in molecular diagnosis was held in H aarlem, the N etherlands, under the sponsorship of the I nternational S ociety of N europathology ( ISN ). Prior to the meeting, participants solicited input from clinical colleagues in diverse neuro‐oncological specialties. The present “white paper” catalogs the recommendations of the meeting, at which a consensus was reached that incorporation of molecular information into the next WHO classification should follow a set of provided “ ISN ‐ H aarlem” guidelines. Salient recommendations include that (i) diagnostic entities should be defined as narrowly as possible to optimize interobserver reproducibility, clinicopathological predictions and therapeutic planning; (ii) diagnoses should be “layered” with histologic classification, WHO grade and molecular information listed below an “integrated diagnosis”; (iii) determinations should be made for each tumor entity as to whether molecular information is required, suggested or not needed for its definition; (iv) some pediatric entities should be separated from their adult counterparts; (v) input for guiding decisions regarding tumor classification should be solicited from experts in complementary disciplines of neuro‐oncology; and (iv) entity‐specific molecular testing and reporting formats should be followed in diagnostic reports. It is hoped that these guidelines will facilitate the forthcoming update of the fourth edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumors.