SCHEDULED DOWNTIME: We will be performing a database migration that will result in the site being unavailable for approximately 1 hour starting at UTC: Monday, 20 May 2024 11:00 PM (check your local time here

WHO classification of CNS tumors

Changed by Frank Gaillard, 29 Jun 2022
Disclosures - updated 9 Jun 2022:
  • Radiopaedia Australia Pty Ltd and Radiopaedia Events Pty Ltd, Director, Founder and CEO (Radiopaedia) (ongoing)
  • Biogen Australia Pty Ltd, Investigator-Initiated Research Grant for CAD software in multiple sclerosis: finished Oct 2021 (past)

Updates to Article Attributes

Body was changed:

The WHO classification of CNS tumours is the most widely accepted system for classifying CNS tumours, now into its 5th edition, traditionally published in a blue cover (thus "blue book").

Although traditionally based on histological characteristics of the tumours, since the 2016 revised 4th edition of the 'blue book' the classification increasingly relies on molecular parameters for classification and in some instances has elevated them above histological features 3.  

Main changes in the 5th edition (2021)

The 5th edition (2021) builds on the prior version by placing greater emphasis on molecular markers both in terms of classification and grading and incorporates most of the recommendations made in the cIMPACT-NOW publications 6. This approach, however, results in a fairly heterogeneous classification depending on the specific entity. Some tumours remain primarily assessed histologically while others are entirely on the basis of molecular parameters. 

This will be reflected in a "layered report structure" wherein histological features, grading and molecular information will be combined to form an integrated diagnosis.

  • integrated diagnosis
  • histopathological classification
  • CNS WHO grade
  • molecular information

Some important changes to terminology and specific entities are worth highlighting. 

Terminology

Type and subtype

  • type replaces "entity"
  • subtype replaces "variant" 

For example, meningiomas represent one "type" with numerous "subtypes" e.g. chordoid, rhabdoid, clear cell etc.

Grading
Grading within tumour types

Unlike otherOther WHO classification systems thatgenerally grade each tumour based on its own features (iindependently; i.e. the most low-grade version of a particular tumour is given grade 1 regardless of how aggressive it is) relative to other diagnoses.

In contrast, in prior editions of the WHO classification of CNS tumours, entities were graded (roughly) equivalently so that, in principle, grade I tumours of any type were generally indolent and could be cured if completely resected, whereas grade IV tumours would result in rapid demise 8.

As a further step towards bringing the CNS classification of tumours in line with those of other systems, this approach has been mostly abandoned, at least aspirationally, abandoned in favour of grading tumours purely within each "type" 8.

Due to the inertia of prior classifications and the desire to avoid additional confusion, however, this has only been adopted in a way that does not overly clash with prior grading. For example, despite grading within tumour types, no grade 1 diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant exists (only gradegrades 2, 3 and 4 are available). Similarly, glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype can only ever be a grade 4 tumour 8

It should also be noted that generally there is shift towards placing less importance on grade as it is often less relevant than location or available therapies. For example, medulloblastoma, WNT activated, despite being a grade 4 tumour, if treated has a good prognosis far better than other medulloblastoma types

Arabic numerals

Previously the Roman numerals I, II, III and IV were used for grading. These will be replaced by the Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4 to bring CNS tumour grades in line with other systems. However, since the features used to grade CNS tumours remain different from those used systemically, it is recommended that the grade be preceded by "CNS WHO", e.g. "meningioma CNS WHO grade 1" 8

Anaplastic modifier

The term anaplastic, used extensively in the prior classifications has been dropped in favour of grading only. Thus what was previously known as an "anaplastic astrocytoma" is now referred to as an "astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 3" 8.

Molecular grading

For the first time, molecular features have been explicitly added to the grading schema, and may supersede histological features. For example, an IDH-wildtype astrocytoma with low-grade histologic features can be considered grade 4 (glioblastoma) in the presence of EGFR amplification, TERT promoter mutation or the combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10 [+7/-10] 8

Essential and desirable diagnostic criteria

Each tumour type has been given certain essential diagnostic criteria necessary for a specific diagnosis, as well as additional non-essential but nonetheless desirable criteria 8.

Not elsewhere classified (NEC)

In addition to not otherwise specified (NOS), which denotes tumours where complete molecular classification is not available, not elsewhere classified (NEC) has been added to denote tumours that have been fully characterised but that do not fit within the established classification system 8,9

Main changes in the revised 4th edition (2016)

The 2016 revised 4th edition significantly changed the classification of a number of tumour families, introducing a greater reliance on molecular markers. The most notable changes involve diffuse gliomas, in which IDH status (mutated vs. wildtype) and 1p19q co-deletion (for oligodendrogliomas) have risen to prominence. Importantly if histological phenotype and genotype are not-concordant (e.g. looks like diffuse astrocytoma but is 1p19q co-deleted, ATRX-wildtype) then genotype wins, and it is used to determine diagnosis 3

Medulloblastomas have also been divided into distinct molecular subgroups. 

Another change is the combining of solitary fibrous tumours of the dura with haemangiopericytoma, which although appearing very different on imaging seem now to be manifestations of the same tumour. 

Structure

Despite a move towards molecular markers for some entities, the classification continues to be organised according to the cell of origin (e.g. ependymal tumours) or anatomical origin (e.g. tumours of the sellar region). 

Classification (5th edition, 2021)

Gliomas, glioneuronal tumours, and neuronal tumours
Adult-type diffuse gliomas
Paediatric-type diffuse low-grade gliomas
Paediatric-type diffuse high-grade gliomas
Circumscribed astrocytic gliomas
Glioneuronal and neuronal tumours
Ependymal tumours
Choroid plexus tumours
Embryonal tumours
Medulloblastoma
  • medulloblastomas, molecularly defined
    • medulloblastoma, WNT-activated
    • medulloblastoma, SHH-activated and TP53-wildtype
    • medulloblastoma, SHH-activated and TP53-mutant
    • medulloblastoma, non-WNT/non-SHH
  • medulloblastomas, histologically defined
Other CNS embryonal tumours
Pineal tumours
Cranial and paraspinal nerve tumours
Meningiomas
Mesenchymal, non-meningothelial tumours
Soft tissue tumours
Chondro-osseous tumours
Melanocytic tumours
Hematolymphoid tumours
Lymphomas
Histiocytic tumours
Germ cell tumours
Tumours of the sellar region
Metastases to the CNS

History and etymology

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organisation and commissions and publishes the "WHO classification of tumours" series. Please note that the term "blue book" is used for all books in the series not just the CNS tumour book 10.

  • -</ul><p>For example, <a href="/articles/meningioma">meningiomas</a> represent one "type" with numerous "subtypes" e.g. chordoid, rhabdoid, clear cell etc.</p><h5>Grading</h5><h6>Grading within tumour types</h6><p>Unlike other WHO classification systems that grade each tumour based on its own features (i.e. the most low-grade version of a particular tumour is given grade 1 regardless of how aggressive it is), in prior editions of the WHO classification of CNS tumours were graded (roughly) equivalently so that, in principle, grade I tumours of any type were generally indolent and could be cured if completely resected, whereas grade IV tumours would result in rapid demise <sup>8</sup>.</p><p>As a further step towards bringing the CNS classification of tumours in line with those of other systems, this approach has been mostly abandoned, in favour of grading tumours purely within each "type" <sup>8</sup>.</p><p>Due to the inertia of prior classifications and the desire to avoid additional confusion, however, this has only been adopted in a way that does not overly clash with prior grading. For example, despite grading within tumour types, no grade 1 diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant exists (only grade 2, 3 and 4 are available). Similarly, glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype can only ever be a grade 4 tumour <sup>8</sup>. </p><h6>Arabic numerals</h6><p>Previously the Roman numerals I, II, III and IV were used for grading. These will be replaced by the Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4 to bring CNS tumour grades in line with other systems. However, since the features used to grade CNS tumours remain different from those used systemically, it is recommended that the grade be preceded by "CNS WHO", e.g. "meningioma CNS WHO grade 1" <sup>8</sup>. </p><h6>Anaplastic modifier</h6><p>The term anaplastic, used extensively in the prior classifications has been dropped in favour of grading only. Thus what was previously known as an "anaplastic astrocytoma" is now referred to as an "astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 3" <sup>8</sup>.</p><h6>Molecular grading</h6><p>For the first time, molecular features have been explicitly added to the grading schema, and may supersede histological features. For example, an IDH-wildtype astrocytoma with low-grade histologic features can be considered grade 4 (glioblastoma) in the presence of EGFR amplification, TERT promoter mutation or the combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10 [+7/-10] <sup>8</sup>. </p><h5>Essential and desirable diagnostic criteria</h5><p>Each tumour type has been given certain essential diagnostic criteria necessary for a specific diagnosis, as well as additional non-essential but nonetheless desirable criteria <sup>8</sup>.</p><h5>Not elsewhere classified (NEC)</h5><p>In addition to <a href="/articles/not-otherwise-specified-nos">not otherwise specified (NOS)</a>, which denotes tumours where complete molecular classification is not available, <a href="/articles/not-elsewhere-classified-nec">not elsewhere classified (NEC)</a> has been added to denote tumours that have been fully characterised but that do not fit within the established classification system <sup>8,9</sup>. </p><h4>Main changes in the revised 4<sup>th</sup> edition (2016)</h4><p>The 2016 revised 4<sup>th</sup> edition significantly changed the classification of a number of tumour families, introducing a greater reliance on molecular markers. The most notable changes involve diffuse gliomas, in which <a href="/articles/isocitrate-dehydrogenase">IDH</a> status (mutated vs. wildtype) and 1p19q co-deletion (for oligodendrogliomas) have risen to prominence. Importantly if histological phenotype and genotype are not-concordant (e.g. looks like diffuse astrocytoma but is 1p19q co-deleted, ATRX-wildtype) then genotype wins, and it is used to determine diagnosis <sup>3</sup>. </p><p>Medulloblastomas have also been divided into distinct molecular subgroups. </p><p>Another change is the combining of solitary fibrous tumours of the dura with haemangiopericytoma, which although appearing very different on imaging seem now to be manifestations of the same tumour. </p><h4>Structure</h4><p>Despite a move towards molecular markers for some entities, the classification continues to be organised according to the cell of origin (e.g. ependymal tumours) or anatomical origin (e.g. tumours of the sellar region). </p><h4>Classification (5<sup>th </sup>edition, 2021)<strong>​</strong>
  • +</ul><p>For example, <a href="/articles/meningioma">meningiomas</a> represent one "type" with numerous "subtypes" e.g. chordoid, rhabdoid, clear cell etc.</p><h5>Grading</h5><h6>Grading within tumour types</h6><p>Other WHO classification systems generally grade each tumour independently; i.e. the most low-grade version of a particular tumour is given grade 1 regardless of how aggressive it is relative to other diagnoses.</p><p>In contrast, in prior editions of the WHO classification of CNS tumours, entities were graded (roughly) equivalently so that grade I tumours of any type were generally indolent and could be cured if completely resected, whereas grade IV tumours would result in rapid demise <sup>8</sup>.</p><p>As a further step towards bringing the CNS classification of tumours in line with those of other systems, this approach has been, at least aspirationally, abandoned in favour of grading tumours purely within each "type" <sup>8</sup>.</p><p>Due to the inertia of prior classifications and the desire to avoid additional confusion, however, this has only been adopted in a way that does not overly clash with prior grading. For example, despite grading within tumour types, no grade 1 <a title="Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant" href="/articles/astrocytoma-idh-mutant-1">astrocytoma, IDH-mutant</a> exists (only grades 2, 3 and 4 are available). Similarly, <a title="Glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype" href="/articles/glioblastoma-idh-wildtype">glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype</a> can only ever be a grade 4 tumour <sup>8</sup>. </p><p>It should also be noted that generally there is shift towards placing less importance on grade as it is often less relevant than location or available therapies. For example, <a title="Medulloblastoma, WNT-activated" href="/articles/medulloblastoma-wnt-activated">medulloblastoma, WNT activated</a>, despite being a grade 4 tumour, if treated has a good prognosis far better than other medulloblastoma types. </p><h6>Arabic numerals</h6><p>Previously the Roman numerals I, II, III and IV were used for grading. These will be replaced by the Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4 to bring CNS tumour grades in line with other systems. However, since the features used to grade CNS tumours remain different from those used systemically, it is recommended that the grade be preceded by "CNS WHO", e.g. "meningioma CNS WHO grade 1" <sup>8</sup>. </p><h6>Anaplastic modifier</h6><p>The term anaplastic, used extensively in the prior classifications has been dropped in favour of grading only. Thus what was previously known as an "anaplastic astrocytoma" is now referred to as an "astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 3" <sup>8</sup>.</p><h6>Molecular grading</h6><p>For the first time, molecular features have been explicitly added to the grading schema and may supersede histological features. For example, an IDH-wildtype astrocytoma with low-grade histologic features can be considered grade 4 (glioblastoma) in the presence of EGFR amplification, TERT promoter mutation or the combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10 [+7/-10] <sup>8</sup>. </p><h5>Essential and desirable diagnostic criteria</h5><p>Each tumour type has been given certain essential diagnostic criteria necessary for a specific diagnosis, as well as additional non-essential but nonetheless desirable criteria <sup>8</sup>.</p><h5>Not elsewhere classified (NEC)</h5><p>In addition to <a href="/articles/not-otherwise-specified-nos">not otherwise specified (NOS)</a>, which denotes tumours where complete molecular classification is not available, <a href="/articles/not-elsewhere-classified-nec">not elsewhere classified (NEC)</a> has been added to denote tumours that have been fully characterised but that do not fit within the established classification system <sup>8,9</sup>. </p><h4>Main changes in the revised 4<sup>th</sup> edition (2016)</h4><p>The 2016 revised 4<sup>th</sup> edition significantly changed the classification of a number of tumour families, introducing a greater reliance on molecular markers. The most notable changes involve diffuse gliomas, in which <a href="/articles/isocitrate-dehydrogenase">IDH</a> status (mutated vs. wildtype) and 1p19q co-deletion (for oligodendrogliomas) have risen to prominence. Importantly if histological phenotype and genotype are not-concordant (e.g. looks like diffuse astrocytoma but is 1p19q co-deleted, ATRX-wildtype) then genotype wins, and it is used to determine diagnosis <sup>3</sup>. </p><p>Medulloblastomas have also been divided into distinct molecular subgroups. </p><p>Another change is the combining of solitary fibrous tumours of the dura with haemangiopericytoma, which although appearing very different on imaging seem now to be manifestations of the same tumour. </p><h4>Structure</h4><p>Despite a move towards molecular markers for some entities, the classification continues to be organised according to the cell of origin (e.g. ependymal tumours) or anatomical origin (e.g. tumours of the sellar region). </p><h4>Classification (5<sup>th </sup>edition, 2021)<strong>​</strong>

ADVERTISEMENT: Supporters see fewer/no ads

Updating… Please wait.

 Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.

 Thank you for updating your details.