Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386827›Full record

ReviewVeterinary and comparative oncology2025

Diagnosis and Classification of Primary Nodal Lymphomas in Dogs: A Consensus of the Oncology-Pathology Working Group.

Michael O Childress, Anne Avery, Erica Behling-Kelly, Peter Bennett, Laura Brockley, Ryan Dickinson, Kelly Hughes, William C Kisseberth, Laura Marconato, Valeria Martini and 5 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary and comparative oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Michael O ChildressDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6127-4679
Anne AveryDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Erica Behling-KellyDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Peter BennettMelbourne Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Laura BrockleyAdvanced Vetcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ryan DickinsonDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4031-064X
Kelly HughesDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
William C KisseberthDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5991-147X
Laura MarconatoDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7843-615X
Valeria MartiniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Milan, Lodi, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9882-2867
Angela McCleary-WheelerBoehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Fulton, Missouri, USA.
Lucia MinoliDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.
Peter RowlandHistopath Consulting, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Shane SillsDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Luca AresuDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7893-1740

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the primary objectives of the Oncology Pathology Working Group (OPWG) is for oncologists and pathologists to collaboratively generate consensus documents to standardise aspects of and provide guidelines for oncologic pathology in veterinary species. Consensus is established through critical review of the peer-reviewed literature relevant to a subgroup's particular focus. In this article, the authors provide a critical review of the current literature regarding methods for the diagnosis and classification of primary nodal lymphomas of dogs, including histopathology, cytopathology, immunophenotyping and assessment of molecular clonality. Knowledge gaps in the current literature and recommendations for future study are also reported. Major conclusions of this consensus include: (1) Histopathology with immunohistochemistry is required for complete diagnosis and classification of nodal lymphomas; (2) Immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry are the most reliable methods of immunophenotyping lymphomas, though neither is clearly superior to the other; (3) Molecular clonality testing should not be used in favour of immunophenotyping assays for classifying lymphomas; and (4) The use of emerging molecular tests for diagnosing lymphomas in the absence of histopathologic, cytopathologic, or immunophenotypic disease characterisation should be restricted to investigational settings until their diagnostic validity and the clinical benefit they confer to patients are more thoroughly characterised. This document represents the opinions of the OPWG and the authors; it does not constitute a formal endorsement by the American College of Veterinary Pathologists or the Veterinary Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesLymphomaAnimalsDogsImmunohistochemistryImmunophenotypingclinical pathologycomparative oncologyhaematologyoncologypathologysmall animal internal medicine

Identifiers

PMID40386827
PMCPMC12378112

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.