4.2 Article

CD14+ CD16+ monocytes rather than CD14+ CD51/61+ monocytes are a potential cytological marker of circulating osteoclast precursors in multiple myeloma. A preliminary study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LABORATORY HEMATOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 29-35

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.12216

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; osteoclastic precursor; monocytes; bone

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionOsteolytic bone destruction is a major clinical problem in multiple myeloma patients. Osteoclasts can differentiate in vitro from bone marrow-resident monocyte progenitors, such as common monocyte progenitors, as well as circulating monocytes. Various types of monocytes, including osteoclast precursors, appear to circulate systemically. MethodsWe investigated the possibility of demonstrating, by in vitro differentiation and flow cytometry, a circulating osteoclast precursor population in multiple myeloma (MM) patients by studying the distribution of CD14(+/++) CD11b(+) CD51/61(+) and CD14(+/++) CD16(+/-) populations. ResultsUnder short-term in vitro osteoclastic differentiation conditions, almost all CD14 monocytes acquired CD51/61 and CD16 expression. Flow cytometry studies failed to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in circulating CD14(+/++) CD11b(+) CD51/61(+) populations in 20 MM patients with osteolytic lesions. However, the minor circulating CD14(+/++) CD16(+) fraction was significantly increased in MM patients compared with healthy volunteers (109.363.1/mm(3)vs. 65.3 +/- 34.9/mm(3); P=0.005), but with no correlation with markers of tumour burden. The CD14(+/++) CD16(+) to CD14(+/++) CD16(-) ratio was higher in MM patients. ConclusionThe circulating CD14(+/++) CD11b(+) CD51/61(+) fraction was not correlated with bone lesions in MM patients. However, CD14(+/++) CD16(+) monocytes may be a candidate marker. A larger study must be conducted to confirm these promising results for the diagnosis and follow-up of MM patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available