4.7 Article

Characteristic repartition of monocyte subsets as a diagnostic signature of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 125, Issue 23, Pages 3618-3626

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-01-620781

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Equipe labellisee)
  2. French National Cancer Institute
  3. Hospital Clinical Research Program [MAD06]
  4. Hospital Clinical Research Program (MONOMAC)
  5. Fondation de France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a myelodysplastic syndrome/ myeloproliferative neoplasm whose diagnosis is currently based on the elevation of peripheral blood monocytes to >1 x 10(9)/L, measured for >= 3 months. Diagnosis can be ambiguous; for example, with prefibrotic myelofibrosis or reactive monocytosis. We set up a multi-parameter flow cytometry assay to distinguish CD14(+)/CD16(-) classical from CD14(+)/CD16(+) intermediate and CD14(low)/CD16(+) nonclassical monocyte subsets in peripheral blood mononucleated cells and in total blood samples. Compared with healthy donors and patients with reactive monocytosis or another hematologic malignancy, CMML patients demonstrate a characteristic increase in the fraction of CD14(+)/CD16(-) cells (cutoff value, 94.0%). The associated specificity and sensitivity values were 95.1% and 90.6% in the learning cohort (175 samples) and 94.1% and 91.9% in the validation cohort (307 samples), respectively. The accumulation of classical monocytes, which demonstrate a distinct gene expression pattern, is independent of the mutational background. Importantly, this increase disappears in patients who respond to hypomethylating agents. We conclude that an increase in the fraction of classical monocytes to >94.0% of total monocytes is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic marker that rapidly and accurately distinguishes CMML from confounding diagnoses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available