Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 913

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The evolving classification of soft tissue tumours: an update based on the new WHO classification

Fletcher, C D M·2006·Histopathology

Abstract

Tumour classifications have become an integral part of modern oncology and, for pathologists, they provide guidelines which facilitate diagnostic and prognostic reproducibility. In many organ systems and most especially over the past decade or so, the World Health Organization (WHO) classifications have become pre‐eminent, partly enabled by the timely publication of new ‘blue books’ which now incorporate detailed text and copious illustrations. The new WHO classification of soft tissue tumours was introduced in late 2002 and, because it represents a broad consensus view, it has gained widespread acceptance. This review summarizes the changes, both major and minor, which were introduced and briefly describes the significant number of tumour types which have been first recognized or properly characterized during the past decade. Arguably the four most significant conceptual advances have been: (i) the formal recognition that morphologically benign lesions (such as cutaneous fibrous histiocytoma) may very rarely metastasize; (ii) the general acceptance that most pleomorphic sarcomas can be meaningfully subclassified and that so‐called malignant fibrous histiocytoma is not a definable entity, but instead represents a wastebasket of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas, accounting for no more than 5% of adult soft tissue sarcomas; (iii) the acknowledgement that most lesions formerly known as haemangiopericytoma show no evidence of pericytic differentiation and, instead, are fibroblastic in nature and form a morphological continuum with solitary fibrous tumour; and (iv) the increasing appreciation that not only do we not know from which cell type(s) most soft tissue tumours originate (histogenesis) but, for many, we do not recognize their line of differentiation or lineage—hence an increasing number of tumours are placed in the ‘uncertain differentiation’ category.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02284.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 913

Metadata

Authors
Fletcher, C. D. M.
Venue
Histopathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12-16
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
3-12
ISSN
  • 0309-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2559
OpenAlex
W2167080445
Cited by
913
References
5
FWCI
15.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The evolving classification of soft tissue tumours: an update based on the new WHO classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02284.x
The paper
Fletcher, C. D. M. (2006). The evolving classification of soft tissue tumours: an update based on the new WHO classification. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02284.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.