BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the utility of immunofluorescence staining with an antipromyelocytic leukemia (anti-PML) antibody for patients with a suspected diagnosis of new or relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and correlated the findings with the results of other established diagnostic modalities. METHODS: Bone marrow (BM) and/or peripheral blood (PB) smears from 349 patients in whom the diagnosis of APL was considered were assessed with the anti-PML antibody using immunofluorescence. The study group included 199 patients with confirmed APL and 150 with other conditions. The results of conventional cytogenetics, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) performed on these patients were correlated with the PML results. RESULTS: Among patients with confirmed APL, anti-PML antibody was positive in 182 of 184 BM and 32 of 33 PB smears. Conventional cytogenetics demonstrated t(15;17)(q22;q12) in 166 of 182 (91%) patients; 10 had a normal karyotype, 4 had insufficient mitoses to grow in culture, 1 was inconclusive, and 1 was 48, XX, +8, +8. Anti-PML staining was positive in 9 of 10 with a normal karyotype and in all 4 cases with insufficient mitoses. RT-PCR and FISH were positive for PML-retinoic acid receptor-alpha in 169 of 172 (98%) and 90 of 94 (96%) cases, respectively. Among the patients without APL, 148 of 150 (98.6%) were negative with anti-PML antibody. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were 98.9% and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PML immunofluorescence staining is a rapid (<4 hours turnaround time) and reliable frontline diagnostic approach that can facilitate initiation of targeted therapy, particularly in clinical settings where cytogenetic and molecular testing are not readily available.
BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the utility of immunofluorescence staining with an antipromyelocytic leukemia (anti-PML) antibody for patients with a suspected diagnosis of new or relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and correlated the findings with the results of other established diagnostic modalities. METHODS: Bone marrow (BM) and/or peripheral blood (PB) smears from 349 patients in whom the diagnosis of APL was considered were assessed with the anti-PML antibody using immunofluorescence. The study group included 199 patients with confirmed APL and 150 with other conditions. The results of conventional cytogenetics, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) performed on these patients were correlated with the PML results. RESULTS: Among patients with confirmed APL, anti-PML antibody was positive in 182 of 184 BM and 32 of 33 PB smears. Conventional cytogenetics demonstrated t(15;17)(q22;q12) in 166 of 182 (91%) patients; 10 had a normal karyotype, 4 had insufficient mitoses to grow in culture, 1 was inconclusive, and 1 was 48, XX, +8, +8. Anti-PML staining was positive in 9 of 10 with a normal karyotype and in all 4 cases with insufficient mitoses. RT-PCR and FISH were positive for PML-retinoic acid receptor-alpha in 169 of 172 (98%) and 90 of 94 (96%) cases, respectively. Among the patients without APL, 148 of 150 (98.6%) were negative with anti-PML antibody. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were 98.9% and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:PML immunofluorescence staining is a rapid (<4 hours turnaround time) and reliable frontline diagnostic approach that can facilitate initiation of targeted therapy, particularly in clinical settings where cytogenetic and molecular testing are not readily available.
Authors: N Villamor; D Costa; M Aymerich; J Esteve; A Carrió; M Rozman; J L Aguilar; B Falini; E Montserrat; E Campo; D Colomer Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: D Grimwade; A Biondi; M J Mozziconacci; A Hagemeijer; R Berger; M Neat; K Howe; N Dastugue; J Jansen; I Radford-Weiss; F Lo Coco; M Lessard; J M Hernandez; E Delabesse; D Head; V Liso; D Sainty; G Flandrin; E Solomon; F Birg; M Lafage-Pochitaloff Journal: Blood Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D Sainty; V Liso; A Cantù-Rajnoldi; D Head; M J Mozziconacci; C Arnoulet; L Benattar; S Fenu; M Mancini; E Duchayne; F X Mahon; N Gutierrez; F Birg; A Biondi; D Grimwade; M Lafage-Pochitaloff; A Hagemeijer; G Flandrin Journal: Blood Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Carlos Santamaría; Maria Carmen Chillón; Carina Fernández; Patricia Martín-Jiménez; Ana Balanzategui; Ramón García Sanz; Jesús F San Miguel; Marcos-Gonzalez González Journal: Haematologica Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Miguel A Sanz; David Grimwade; Martin S Tallman; Bob Lowenberg; Pierre Fenaux; Elihu H Estey; Tomoki Naoe; Eva Lengfelder; Thomas Büchner; Hartmut Döhner; Alan K Burnett; Francesco Lo-Coco Journal: Blood Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Jae H Park; Baozhen Qiao; Katherine S Panageas; Maria J Schymura; Joseph G Jurcic; Todd L Rosenblat; Jessica K Altman; Dan Douer; Jacob M Rowe; Martin S Tallman Journal: Blood Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Marvin M van Luijn; Theresia M Westers; Martine E D Chamuleau; S Marieke van Ham; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Arjan A van de Loosdrecht Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Muhamed Baljevic; Jae H Park; Eytan Stein; Dan Douer; Jessica K Altman; Martin S Tallman Journal: Hematol Oncol Clin North Am Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.722
Authors: Khaled Alayed; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Roger A Schultz; Jorge Cortes; Gary Lu; Carlos E Bueso-Ramos; Sergej Konoplev Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2013-06-14