Cherie H Dunphy1, Wohzan Tang. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, CB# 7525, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7525, USA. cdunphy@unch.unc.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping is a useful ancillary tool in the diagnosis and subclassification of acute myeloid leukemias (AMLs). A recent study concluded that CD64 is sensitive and specific for distinguishing AMLs with a monocytic component (ie, AML M4 and AML M5) from other AML subtypes. However, in that study, the intensity of CD64 was not well defined and the number of non-M4/non-M5 AMLs was small. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of CD64 by flow cytometric immunophenotyping in distinguishing AMLs with monocytic differentiation from other AML subtypes. DESIGN: Sixty-four AMLs subclassified based on the French-American-British and World Health Organization classifications on pretreatment bone marrows were retrieved from our files (7 M0s, 11 M1s, 17 M2s, 7 M3s, 9 M4s, 7 M5s, 4 M6s, and 2 M7s). A standard panel of markers, including CD2, CD3, CD5, CD7, CD10, CD11b, CD13, CD14, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD33, CD34, CD45, CD56, CD64, CD117, and HLA-DR, were analyzed by flow cytometric immunophenotyping in all AMLs (52 bone marrow samples; 12 peripheral blood samples). RESULTS: CD64 was expressed in AML subtypes M0 to M5 in varying intensities: heterogeneously expressed in 1 of 7 M0s; dimly expressed in 3 of 11 M1s; dimly and moderately expressed in 6 and 2 of 17 M2s, respectively; dimly and moderately expressed in 5 and 1 of 7 M3s, respectively; dimly expressed in 4 of 9 M4s; and heterogeneously, moderately, and strongly expressed in 1, 3, and 3 of 7 M5s, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Strong CD64 expression distinguishes AML M5; however, heterogeneous, dim, or moderate expression in itself does not distinguish M0 through M4 subtypes from M5 with dim to moderate CD64 expression. However, any CD64 expression associated with strong CD15 expression distinguishes AML M4 or M5, from other AML subtypes.
CONTEXT: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping is a useful ancillary tool in the diagnosis and subclassification of acute myeloid leukemias (AMLs). A recent study concluded that CD64 is sensitive and specific for distinguishing AMLs with a monocytic component (ie, AML M4 and AML M5) from other AML subtypes. However, in that study, the intensity of CD64 was not well defined and the number of non-M4/non-M5 AMLs was small. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of CD64 by flow cytometric immunophenotyping in distinguishing AMLs with monocytic differentiation from other AML subtypes. DESIGN: Sixty-four AMLs subclassified based on the French-American-British and World Health Organization classifications on pretreatment bone marrows were retrieved from our files (7 M0s, 11 M1s, 17 M2s, 7 M3s, 9 M4s, 7 M5s, 4 M6s, and 2 M7s). A standard panel of markers, including CD2, CD3, CD5, CD7, CD10, CD11b, CD13, CD14, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD33, CD34, CD45, CD56, CD64, CD117, and HLA-DR, were analyzed by flow cytometric immunophenotyping in all AMLs (52 bone marrow samples; 12 peripheral blood samples). RESULTS:CD64 was expressed in AML subtypes M0 to M5 in varying intensities: heterogeneously expressed in 1 of 7 M0s; dimly expressed in 3 of 11 M1s; dimly and moderately expressed in 6 and 2 of 17 M2s, respectively; dimly and moderately expressed in 5 and 1 of 7 M3s, respectively; dimly expressed in 4 of 9 M4s; and heterogeneously, moderately, and strongly expressed in 1, 3, and 3 of 7 M5s, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Strong CD64 expression distinguishes AML M5; however, heterogeneous, dim, or moderate expression in itself does not distinguish M0 through M4 subtypes from M5 with dim to moderate CD64 expression. However, any CD64 expression associated with strong CD15 expression distinguishes AML M4 or M5, from other AML subtypes.