Chad A Hudson1, W Richard Burack1, Patricia C Leary1, John M Bennett1,2. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 2. Department of Medicine, James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if a clinically applicable flow cytometry methodology could identify chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) cases. METHODS: Monocyte subset screening (CD14/CD16 expression) was performed on 68 blood and 25 bone marrow specimens with a monocytosis and/or flagged as possible CMML. Fifty thousand total events were obtained per case. Cases were categorized as CMML, atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML), or non-CMML + non-aCML by clinicopathologic diagnosis. RESULTS: The methodology differentiated blood and bone marrow CMML cases from non-CMML + non-aCML but not three aCML cases in the clinical setting. Furthermore, a decreased percentage of nonclassical monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) showed better sensitivity than the previously described approach that relied on increased percentage of classical monocytes (CD14brightCD16-). CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of monocyte subsets is useful in clinical practice as a diagnostic marker of CMML in blood and bone marrow specimens. The percentage of nonclassical monocytes should be included in analysis of monocyte subsets.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if a clinically applicable flow cytometry methodology could identify chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) cases. METHODS: Monocyte subset screening (CD14/CD16 expression) was performed on 68 blood and 25 bone marrow specimens with a monocytosis and/or flagged as possible CMML. Fifty thousand total events were obtained per case. Cases were categorized as CMML, atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML), or non-CMML + non-aCML by clinicopathologic diagnosis. RESULTS: The methodology differentiated blood and bone marrow CMML cases from non-CMML + non-aCML but not three aCML cases in the clinical setting. Furthermore, a decreased percentage of nonclassical monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) showed better sensitivity than the previously described approach that relied on increased percentage of classical monocytes (CD14brightCD16-). CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of monocyte subsets is useful in clinical practice as a diagnostic marker of CMML in blood and bone marrow specimens. The percentage of nonclassical monocytes should be included in analysis of monocyte subsets.
Authors: Xavier Calvo; David Roman-Bravo; Nieves Garcia-Gisbert; Juan Jose Rodriguez-Sevilla; Sara Garcia-Avila; Lourdes Florensa; Joan Gibert; Concepción Fernández-Rodríguez; Marta Salido; Anna Puiggros; Blanca Espinet; Luis Colomo; Beatriz Bellosillo; Ana Ferrer; Leonor Arenillas Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-12
Authors: Prateek A Pophali; Michael M Timm; Abhishek A Mangaonkar; Min Shi; Kaaren Reichard; Ayalew Tefferi; Kevin Pavelko; Jose C Villasboas; Dragan Jevremovic; Mrinal M Patnaik Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Thomas P Hofer; Arjan A van de Loosdrecht; Christiane Stahl-Hennig; Marco A Cassatella; Loems Ziegler-Heitbrock Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Peter Valent; Attilio Orazi; Michael R Savona; Mrinal M Patnaik; Francesco Onida; Arjan A van de Loosdrecht; Detlef Haase; Torsten Haferlach; Chiara Elena; Lisa Pleyer; Wolfgang Kern; Tea Pemovska; Gregory I Vladimer; Julie Schanz; Alexandra Keller; Michael Lübbert; Thomas Lion; Karl Sotlar; Andreas Reiter; Theo De Witte; Michael Pfeilstöcker; Klaus Geissler; Eric Padron; Michael Deininger; Alberto Orfao; Hans-Peter Horny; Peter L Greenberg; Daniel A Arber; Luca Malcovati; John M Bennett Journal: Haematologica Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 9.941