Flow cytometry in the differential diagnosis of myelodysplastic neoplasm with low blasts and cytopenia of other causes

M. Plander, Mária Kányási, Tamás Szendrei, J. Skrapits, B. Timár
{"title":"Flow cytometry in the differential diagnosis of myelodysplastic neoplasm with low blasts and cytopenia of other causes","authors":"M. Plander, Mária Kányási, Tamás Szendrei, J. Skrapits, B. Timár","doi":"10.3389/pore.2024.1611811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are characterized by cytopenia, morphologic dysplasia, and genetic abnormalities. Multiparameter flow cytometry (FCM) is recommended in the diagnostic work-up of suspected MDS, but alone is not sufficient to establish the diagnosis. Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic power of FCM in a heterogeneous population of patients with cytopenia, excluding cases with increased blast count.We analyzed bone marrow samples from 179 patients with cytopenia (58 MDS, 121 non-MDS) using a standardized 8-color FCM method. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of several simple diagnostic approaches, including Ogata score, extended Ogata score, the WHO and ELN iMDSFlow recommended “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method,” and the combination of the Ogata score and “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method.” The patients were followed until the diagnosis was confirmed, with a median follow-up of 2 months (range 0.2–27).The combination of Ogata score and “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (78%) with sensitivity and specificity 61% and 86%, respectively. When using only the “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method,” the accuracy was 77% with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 79%. The most frequently observed etiologies among the false positive cases were substrate deficiencies, inflammation/infection, or toxic effects. MDS can be excluded in all these cases after a thorough clinical evaluation and a relatively short follow-up.FCM remains an important but supplementary part in an integrated diagnostic process of MDS with low blasts. The combination of the Ogata score and the “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” slightly improves accuracy compared to the detection of “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” alone.","PeriodicalId":20037,"journal":{"name":"Pathology and Oncology Research","volume":" 864","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathology and Oncology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/pore.2024.1611811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are characterized by cytopenia, morphologic dysplasia, and genetic abnormalities. Multiparameter flow cytometry (FCM) is recommended in the diagnostic work-up of suspected MDS, but alone is not sufficient to establish the diagnosis. Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic power of FCM in a heterogeneous population of patients with cytopenia, excluding cases with increased blast count.We analyzed bone marrow samples from 179 patients with cytopenia (58 MDS, 121 non-MDS) using a standardized 8-color FCM method. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of several simple diagnostic approaches, including Ogata score, extended Ogata score, the WHO and ELN iMDSFlow recommended “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method,” and the combination of the Ogata score and “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method.” The patients were followed until the diagnosis was confirmed, with a median follow-up of 2 months (range 0.2–27).The combination of Ogata score and “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (78%) with sensitivity and specificity 61% and 86%, respectively. When using only the “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method,” the accuracy was 77% with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 79%. The most frequently observed etiologies among the false positive cases were substrate deficiencies, inflammation/infection, or toxic effects. MDS can be excluded in all these cases after a thorough clinical evaluation and a relatively short follow-up.FCM remains an important but supplementary part in an integrated diagnostic process of MDS with low blasts. The combination of the Ogata score and the “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” slightly improves accuracy compared to the detection of “3 aberrations in two cell compartments method” alone.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流式细胞术在骨髓增生异常肿瘤伴低血小板和其他原因引起的全血细胞减少症的鉴别诊断中的应用
骨髓增生异常性肿瘤(MDS)以全血细胞减少、形态发育不良和基因异常为特征。多参数流式细胞术(FCM)被推荐用于疑似骨髓增生异常性肿瘤的诊断工作,但它本身并不足以确定诊断。我们采用标准化的 8 色 FCM 方法分析了 179 例全血细胞减少患者(58 例 MDS,121 例非 MDS)的骨髓样本。我们评估了几种简单诊断方法的敏感性、特异性和准确性,包括绪方评分、扩展绪方评分、WHO 和 ELN iMDSFlow 推荐的 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法",以及绪方评分和 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法 "的组合。对患者进行随访直至确诊,中位随访时间为 2 个月(0.2-27 个月)。绪方评分和 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法 "的组合诊断准确率最高(78%),敏感性和特异性分别为 61% 和 86%。如果仅使用 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法",准确率为 77%,敏感性为 72%,特异性为 79%。在假阳性病例中,最常见的病因是基质缺乏、炎症/感染或毒性作用。经过全面的临床评估和相对较短的随访,所有这些病例均可排除 MDS。绪方评分与 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法 "相结合,与单独检测 "两个细胞区 3 个畸变法 "相比,准确性略有提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The efficacy and safety of second salvage autologous transplantation in myeloma patients The efficacy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD axis inhibitor agents - a population-based study of the Vojvodina region From prenatal diagnosis to surgical treatment: two case reports of congenital granular cell epulis Flow cytometry in the differential diagnosis of myelodysplastic neoplasm with low blasts and cytopenia of other causes The roles of phosphorylation of signaling proteins in the prognosis of acute myeloid leukemia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1