BACKGROUND: Individuals with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) have been identified in clinic outpatients, in unaffected relatives of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and in general populations. MBL and its relationship with CLL have been actively investigated over the last decade. This report systematically reviews the prevalence of MBL in the context of the populations studied and the evolution of laboratory methods used to define MBL. METHODS: To identify published studies that have assessed the prevalence of MBL, we systematically searched the MEDLINE databases and consulted with members of the International MBL Study Group. We reviewed the 10 articles that were identified by this process. We abstracted information on study populations, laboratory tests, criteria for designating MBL, and the reported frequencies. RESULTS: Three of the ten studies were published in 2009, three between 2007 and 2008, and four between 2002 and 2004. Reported prevalences varied widely, ranging from 0.12 to 18.2%. This variability was clearly associated with both the laboratory methods and the populations studied. MBL was more common among older individuals and kindred of persons with CLL. The most common MBL subtype was CLL-like MBL. CONCLUSIONS: Large population-based studies of MBL that employ standardized laboratory methods with a consensus case definition are needed to assess prevalence and establish risk factors. These studies should include prospective follow-up of MBL cases to determine the relationship between MBL and CLL. Data from original studies should be reported in sufficient detail to allow future synthesis of information from multiple studies, such as meta-analysis. Published 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) have been identified in clinic outpatients, in unaffected relatives of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and in general populations. MBL and its relationship with CLL have been actively investigated over the last decade. This report systematically reviews the prevalence of MBL in the context of the populations studied and the evolution of laboratory methods used to define MBL. METHODS: To identify published studies that have assessed the prevalence of MBL, we systematically searched the MEDLINE databases and consulted with members of the International MBL Study Group. We reviewed the 10 articles that were identified by this process. We abstracted information on study populations, laboratory tests, criteria for designating MBL, and the reported frequencies. RESULTS: Three of the ten studies were published in 2009, three between 2007 and 2008, and four between 2002 and 2004. Reported prevalences varied widely, ranging from 0.12 to 18.2%. This variability was clearly associated with both the laboratory methods and the populations studied. MBL was more common among older individuals and kindred of persons with CLL. The most common MBL subtype was CLL-like MBL. CONCLUSIONS: Large population-based studies of MBL that employ standardized laboratory methods with a consensus case definition are needed to assess prevalence and establish risk factors. These studies should include prospective follow-up of MBL cases to determine the relationship between MBL and CLL. Data from original studies should be reported in sufficient detail to allow future synthesis of information from multiple studies, such as meta-analysis. Published 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Youn K Shim; Robert F Vogt; Dan Middleton; Fatima Abbasi; Barbara Slade; Kyung Y Lee; Gerald E Marti Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Gerald E Marti; Andy C Rawstron; Paolo Ghia; Peter Hillmen; Richard S Houlston; Neil Kay; Thérèse A Schleinitz; Neil Caporaso Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Gerald E Marti; Patricia Carter; Fatima Abbasi; Glennelle C Washington; Nisha Jain; Vincent E Zenger; Naoko Ishibe; Lynn Goldin; Laura Fontaine; Nancy Weissman; Maria Sgambati; Guy Fauget; Pablo Bertin; Robert F Vogt; Barbara Slade; Philip D Noguchi; M A Stetler-Stevenson; Neil Caporaso Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Andy C Rawstron; Martin R Yuille; Julie Fuller; Matthew Cullen; Ben Kennedy; Stephen J Richards; Andrew S Jack; Estella Matutes; Daniel Catovsky; Peter Hillmen; Richard S Houlston Journal: Blood Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Neil Caporaso; Lynn Goldin; Christoph Plass; George Calin; Gerald Marti; Steven Bauer; Elizabeth Raveche; Mary Lou McMaster; David Ng; Ola Landgren; Susan Slager Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Robert F Vogt; Youn K Shim; Dannie C Middleton; Patricia A Buffler; Sharon S Campolucci; Jeffrey A Lybarger; Gerald E Marti Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Andy C Rawstron; Michael J Green; Anita Kuzmicki; Ben Kennedy; James A L Fenton; Paul A S Evans; Sheila J M O'Connor; Stephen J Richards; Gareth J Morgan; Andrew S Jack; Peter Hillmen Journal: Blood Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Youn K Shim; Jane M Rachel; Paolo Ghia; Jeff Boren; Fatima Abbasi; Antonis Dagklis; Geri Venable; Jiyeon Kang; Heba Degheidy; Fred V Plapp; Robert F Vogt; Jay E Menitove; Gerald E Marti Journal: Blood Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Erica Salerno; Yao Yuan; Brian J Scaglione; Gerald Marti; Alexander Jankovic; Fermina Mazzella; Maria Fernanda Laurindo; Daryl Despres; Sivasubramanian Baskar; Christoph Rader; Elizabeth Raveche Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: M C Lanasa; S D Allgood; S L Slager; S S Dave; C Love; G E Marti; N E Kay; C A Hanson; K G Rabe; S J Achenbach; L R Goldin; N J Camp; B K Goodman; C M Vachon; L G Spector; L Z Rassenti; J F Leis; J P Gockerman; S S Strom; T G Call; M Glenn; J R Cerhan; M C Levesque; J B Weinberg; N E Caporaso Journal: Leukemia Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 11.528