Cited by 314Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Clinical implications of the 2021 edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumours

Horbinski, Craig, Berger, Tamar, Packer, Roger J., Wen, Patrick Y.·2022·Nature Reviews Neurology

Abstract

A new edition of the WHO classification of tumours of the CNS was published in 2021. Although the previous edition of this classification was published just 5 years earlier, in 2016, rapid advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of CNS tumours, including the diversity of clinically relevant molecular types and subtypes, necessitated a new classification system. Compared with the 2016 scheme, the new classification incorporates even more molecular alterations into the diagnosis of many tumours and reorganizes gliomas into adult-type diffuse gliomas, paediatric-type diffuse low-grade and high-grade gliomas, circumscribed astrocytic gliomas, and ependymal tumours. A number of new entities are incorporated into the 2021 classification, especially tumours that preferentially or exclusively arise in the paediatric population. Such a substantial revision of the WHO scheme will have major implications for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CNS tumours. In this Perspective, we summarize the main changes in the classification of diffuse and circumscribed gliomas, ependymomas, embryonal tumours and meningiomas, and discuss how each change will influence post-surgical treatment, clinical trial enrolment and cooperative studies. Although the 2021 WHO classification of CNS tumours is a major conceptual advance, its implementation on a routine clinical basis presents some challenges that will require innovative solutions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41582-022-00679-w

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 125 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horbinski, C., Berger, T., Packer, R. J., & Wen, P. Y.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Children's National (US)
Corresponding author
Horbinski, Craig
Venue
Nature Reviews Neurology
Published
2022-06-21
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
515-529
ISSN
  • 1759-4758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4766
OpenAlex
W4283213286
Cited by
312
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 12
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA221747, K12CA090354)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS118039, R01NS102669, R01NS117104)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
diffuse glioma, ependymoma, embryonal tumors, meningioma, pediatric brain tumors, inclusion and exclusion criteria, postoperative care
MeSH terms
Brain Neoplasms, Child, Glioma, Humans, Meningeal Neoplasms, Meningioma, World Health Organization, Central Nervous System Neoplasms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review