Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2019
Flow cytometry aneuploidy and cell cycle indexing as a possible tool for differentiating between CD10+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azoulay David, Cohen Hector I, Dementiev Eugene, Eshel Elizabeth, Akria Luiza, Shaoul Ety, Horowitz Netanel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) becomes a challenge when adequate biopsy is unavailable. The present study aimed to investigate the applicability of DNA cell cycle analysis by flow cytometry (FC) for differentiating between CD10+ DLBCL and FL.
METHODS: Data were collected from 57 specimens where CD5- /CD10+ /light chain restricted B cells were detected. DNA staining was performed using the Coulter DNA Prep Kit. Cell cycle fractions were evaluated by automatic analysis using the ModFit LT software.
RESULTS: Histopathological analysis confirmed the diagnosis of CD10+ FL in 30 specimens (52.6%), CD10+ DLBCL in 24 specimens (42.1%), and CD10+ Burkitt lymphoma in 3 specimens (5.3%). A significantly higher rate of DNA aneuploidy was detected among CD10+ DLBCL than FL specimens (50 vs. 13.3% respectively, p = .003). Likewise, DNA index was significantly higher in CD10+ DLBCL relative to FL (1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.04 ± 0.16 respectively, p = .004). Notably, the proportion of cells in the S-phase and proliferative fraction was significantly higher in CD10+ DLBCL than in CD10+ FL (S-phase: 15.97 ± 13.94 vs. 4.43 ± 4.41 mean ± SD, respectively, p < .0001; proliferative fraction: 18.87 ± 15.17 vs. 5.78 ± 7.04 mean ± SD, respectively, p = .0001). Using a receiver operating characteristic analysis, optimal cutoffs for S-phase ≥7% and proliferative fraction ≥9% were determined. These values could be used to differentiate between CD10+ DLBCL and CD10+ FL.
CONCLUSION: Including DNA cell cycle analysis in the FC lymphoma assessment panel may be of diagnostic value in differentiating between CD10+ DLBCL and FL when adequate biopsy is unavailable.
METHODS: Data were collected from 57 specimens where CD5- /CD10+ /light chain restricted B cells were detected. DNA staining was performed using the Coulter DNA Prep Kit. Cell cycle fractions were evaluated by automatic analysis using the ModFit LT software.
RESULTS: Histopathological analysis confirmed the diagnosis of CD10+ FL in 30 specimens (52.6%), CD10+ DLBCL in 24 specimens (42.1%), and CD10+ Burkitt lymphoma in 3 specimens (5.3%). A significantly higher rate of DNA aneuploidy was detected among CD10+ DLBCL than FL specimens (50 vs. 13.3% respectively, p = .003). Likewise, DNA index was significantly higher in CD10+ DLBCL relative to FL (1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.04 ± 0.16 respectively, p = .004). Notably, the proportion of cells in the S-phase and proliferative fraction was significantly higher in CD10+ DLBCL than in CD10+ FL (S-phase: 15.97 ± 13.94 vs. 4.43 ± 4.41 mean ± SD, respectively, p < .0001; proliferative fraction: 18.87 ± 15.17 vs. 5.78 ± 7.04 mean ± SD, respectively, p = .0001). Using a receiver operating characteristic analysis, optimal cutoffs for S-phase ≥7% and proliferative fraction ≥9% were determined. These values could be used to differentiate between CD10+ DLBCL and CD10+ FL.
CONCLUSION: Including DNA cell cycle analysis in the FC lymphoma assessment panel may be of diagnostic value in differentiating between CD10+ DLBCL and FL when adequate biopsy is unavailable.