Classification of Ventricular Septal Defects for the Eleventh Iteration of the International Classification of Diseases—Striving for Consensus: A Report From the International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease

The definition and classification of ventricular septal defects have been fraught with controversy. The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease is a group of international specialists in pediatric cardiology, cardiac surgery, cardiac morphology, and cardiac pathology that has met annually for the past 9 years in an effort to unify by consensus the divergent approaches to describe ventricular septal defects. These efforts have culminated in acceptance of the classification system by the World Health Organization into the 11th Iteration of the International Classification of Diseases. The scheme to categorize a ventricular septal defect uses both its location and the structures along its borders, thereby bridging the two most popular and disparate classification approaches and providing a common language for describing each phenotype. Although the first-order terms are based on the geographic categories of central perimembranous, inlet, trabecular muscular, and outlet defects, inlet and outlet defects are further characterized by descriptors that incorporate the borders of the defect, namely the perimembranous, muscular, and juxta-arterial types. The Society recognizes that it is equally valid to classify these defects by geography or borders, so the emphasis in this system is on the second-order terms that incorporate both geography and borders to describe each phenotype. The unified terminology should help the medical community describe with better precision all types of ventricular septal defects

Nomenclature for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care: Unification of Clinical and Administrative Nomenclature – The 2021 International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) and the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

Substantial progress has been made in the standardization of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care. In 1936, Maude Abbott published her Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease, which was the first formal attempt to classify congenital heart disease. The International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code ( IPCCC ) is now utilized worldwide and has most recently become the paediatric and congenital cardiac component of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases ( ICD-11 ). The most recent publication of the IPCCC was in 2017. This manuscript provides an updated 2021 version of the IPCCC . The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease ( ISNPCHD ), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), developed the paediatric and congenital cardiac nomenclature that is now within the eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This unification of IPCCC and ICD-11 is the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature and is the first time that the clinical nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care and the administrative nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care are harmonized. The resultant congenital cardiac component of ICD-11 was increased from 29 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-9 and 73 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-10 to 318 codes submitted by ISNPCHD through 2018 for incorporation into ICD-11. After these 318 terms were incorporated into ICD-11 in 2018, the WHO ICD-11 team added an additional 49 terms, some of which are acceptable legacy terms from ICD-10, while others provide greater granularity than the ISNPCHD thought was originally acceptable. Thus, the total number of paediatric and congenital cardiac terms in ICD-11 is 367. In this manuscript, we describe and review the terminology, hierarchy, and definitions of the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature . This article, therefore, presents a global system of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care that unifies clinical and administrative nomenclature. The members of ISNPCHD realize that the nomenclature published in this manuscript will continue to evolve. The version of the IPCCC that was published in 2017 has evolved and changed, and it is now replaced by this 2021 version. In the future, ISNPCHD will again publish updated versions of IPCCC , as IPCCC continues to evolve

Inhibition of c-MET is a potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Hepatocyte growth factor/c-MET has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for several cancers; however, its role in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has not been fully elucidated. In this study, we first investigated the role of c-Met in a large series of DLBCL tissues in a tissue microarray format. We then followed this with in vitro studies on DLBCL cell lines using either pharmacological inhibitors of c-Met or siRNA knockdown strategy. c-Met was found to be overexpressed in 73.2% of patients (186/254) and was significantly associated with overexpression of p-AKT (P=0.0274), p-GSK3 (P=0.0047) and Ki-67 (P=0.0012). Interestingly, c-Met overexpression was significantly more common in the germinal center subtype of DLBCL, as compared with activated B cell subtype (P=0.0002). Overexpression of c-Met in DLBCL was significantly associated with better survival (P=0.0028) and remained significant in multivariate analysis with international prognostic index, thereby confirming c-Met as independent prognostic marker for better outcome in DLBCL. In vitro pharmacological c-Met inhibition and siRNA targeted against c-Met triggered caspase-dependent apoptosis. These findings provide evidence that c-Met is an independent prognostic marker for better outcome in Middle Eastern DLBCL. This data also enlightens the fact that c-Met through AKT kinase has a critical role in carcinogenesis of DLBCL, and strongly suggest that targeting c-Met may have therapeutic value in treatment of DLBCL