rtmill
commented
10 months ago <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Grading System | Exists in vocabs? | Vocab | Standard? | codes | Focus | Comment -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- (General Cancer Modifier Grade) | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3,4,L, I, H | | No hierarchy between them Gleason scoring system for malignant neoplasm of prostate | Y | CM | Y | | Prostate | Gleason includes: score, grade group, primary pattern grade, seconday pattern grade, tertiary pattern grade Pathological Gleason | Y | | Y | | Prostate | College of American Pathologist tumor grading system | N | - | - | - | | ISUP Pathology histological group | Y | **SNOMED** | **Y** | | | Nottingham Grade | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3 | Breast cancer | Nottingham Score | Y | CM | Y | 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 | Breast cancer | Nottingham mitotic score | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3 | Breast cancer | Nottingham nuclear score | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3 | Breast cancer | Nottingham tubular score | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3 | Breast cancer | WHO CNS tumor grading system | Y | CM | **N** | 1,2,3,4 | CNS | Thal phase staging of amyloid plaques | | | | | | World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for urothelial neoplasm | Y | CM | N | 1,2,3,4,X,High,Low | | **French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group (FNCLCC) grading system** | Y | CM | **N** | 1,2, 3 | | exists twice in CM, neither standard International Society of Urologic Pathology prostate cancer staging system | Class only | SNOMED | Y | | Prostate | Fuhrman nuclear grading system | Y | CM | Y | 1,2,3,4 | Kidney | Also in SNOMED
Which grading systems to persist as standard concepts? What criteria do we we use to determine?
Officially Requested: Add FNCLCC grade 1, 2 and 3 ? (Exists twice in Cancer Modifier - all non-standard)
Should we standardize others as well?