Hematopathology fellowship education has grown in complexity as patient-centered treatment plans have come to depend on integration of clinical, morphologic, immunophenotypic, molecular, and cytogenetic variables. This complexity is in competition with the need for timely hematopathology care with stewardship of patient, laboratory, and societal resources. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones provide a guidance document for hematopathology training, but fellows and their educators are in need of a simple framework that allows assessment and feedback of growth toward independent hematopathology practice. Entrustable professional activities provide one such framework, and herein, we provide proposed Hematopathology Fellowship Entrustable Professional Activities based on review of pertinent guidelines and literature, with multiple rounds of expert and stakeholder input utilizing a modified mini-Delphi approach. Ten core entrustable professional activities deemed essential for graduating hematopathology fellows were developed together with skills and knowledge statements, example scenarios, and corresponding Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones. Application of these entrustable professional activities in program design, fellow evaluation, and decisions regarding level of supervision is discussed with consideration of benefits and barriers to implementation. These entrustable professional activities may be used by hematopathology fellowship directors and faculty to provide fellows with timely constructive feedback, determine entrustment decisions, provide the Clinical Competency Committee with granular data to support Milestone evaluations, and provide insight into areas of potential improvement in fellowship training. Fellows will benefit from a clear roadmap to independent hematopathology practice with concrete and timely feedback.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis (PMF) strongly relies on the bone marrow biopsy findings, but a report model has not been standardised. Our aim was to establish general recommendations for bone marrow evaluation and standardised reporting in a case suspicious of PMF.
METHODS: The Delphi method was employed to obtain expert consensus. An advisory panel of 10 leading members identifies a total of 37 haematopathology experts to participate. The first Delphi round included a questionnaire with three main groups of items: minimal clinical and laboratory data considered necessary before reporting, minimal descriptive aspects to record and main histological differential diagnosis. The final report content was based on consensus obtained after the second Delphi round.
RESULTS: The minimal data considered necessary were age, splenomegaly, haemoglobin, leucocyte and platelet counts, differential blood cell count, leucoerythroblastic blood picture, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, BCR-ABL and JAK2 mutational status, reticulin stain and the internal control for the reticulin staining. The minimal descriptive aspects to report were cellularity, osteosclerosis, megakaryocytic morphology and localisation, dense megakaryocytic clusters, quantity of granulocytic precursors, grade of myelofibrosis in a scale of 4, and a proposed final diagnostic approach. The entities to be considered for differential diagnosis were mainly the other classical chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms.
CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi method is a robust tool to determine essential information to be included in a pathology report. A standardised good-quality histopathological report form may help to homogenise PMF diagnosis. A close collaboration between the pathologist and the haematologist is desirable according to our survey.