Modern classification of neoplasms: reconciling differences between morphologic and molecular approaches.
BACKGROUND
For over 150 years, pathologists have relied on histomorphology to classify and diagnose neoplasms. Their success has been stunning, permitting the accurate diagnosis of thousands of different types of neoplasms using only a microscope and a trained eye. In the past two decades, cancer genomics has challenged the supremacy of histomorphology by identifying genetic alterations shared by morphologically diverse tumors and by finding genetic features that distinguish subgroups of morphologically homogeneous tumors.


CONCLUSIONS
The Developmental Lineage Classification and Taxonomy of Neoplasms groups neoplasms by their embryologic origin. The putative value of this classification is based on the expectation that tumors of a common developmental lineage will share common metabolic pathways and common responses to drugs that target these pathways. The purpose of this manuscript is to show that grouping tumors according to their developmental lineage can reconcile certain fundamental discrepancies resulting from morphologic and molecular approaches to neoplasm classification. In this study, six issues in tumor classification are described that exemplify the growing rift between morphologic and molecular approaches to tumor classification: 1) the morphologic separation between epithelial and non-epithelial tumors; 2) the grouping of tumors based on shared cellular functions; 3) the distinction between germ cell tumors and pluripotent tumors of non-germ cell origin; 4) the distinction between tumors that have lost their differentiation and tumors that arise from uncommitted stem cells; 5) the molecular properties shared by morphologically disparate tumors that have a common developmental lineage, and 6) the problem of re-classifying morphologically identical but clinically distinct subsets of tumors. The discussion of these issues in the context of describing different methods of tumor classification is intended to underscore the clinical value of a robust tumor classification.


CONCLUSIONS
A classification of neoplasms should guide the rational design and selection of a new generation of cancer medications targeted to metabolic pathways. Without a scientifically sound neoplasm classification, biological measurements on individual tumor samples cannot be generalized to class-related tumors, and constitutive properties common to a class of tumors cannot be distinguished from uninformative data in complex and chaotic biological systems. This paper discusses the importance of biological classification and examines several different approaches to the specific problem of tumor classification.
Berman
Jules
J
U.S. National Cancer Institute, Cancer Diagnosis Program, Bethesda, USA. jjberman@alum.mit.edu
D002454:Cell Differentiation; D019070:Cell Lineage; D004622:Embryo, Mammalian / Q000166:cytology; D006801:Humans; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000379:methods*; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000145:classification* / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000235:genetics; D009373:Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology; D009375:Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology; D013234:Stem Cells / Q000166:cytology