4.1 Article

Clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic features in dogs with presumptive large granular lymphocyte leukaemia

Journal

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
Volume 100, Issue 11, Pages 527-532

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/avj.13199

Keywords

biochemistry; dog; granular lymphocytes; haematology; leukaemia; phenotype

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a case series of canine LGLL, providing insights into the haematological parameters, serum biochemistry findings, and phenotype of large granular lymphocytes. Neutrophilia and elevated serum gamma-glutamyl transferase were common abnormalities. The study also observed concurrent neoplasia in some canine LGLL cases.
Large granular lymphocytic leukaemia (LGLL) has been described in a range of species but has been most commonly reported in humans and dogs. In both species, this neoplasia exhibits diversity in both phenotype and biological behaviour with phenotype only partially predicting behaviour. There is currently little knowledge of concurrent haematological and serum biochemistry features or concurrent occurrence of distinct neoplasia in canine LGLL cases. This study presents a canine case series and defines haematological parameters, novel serum biochemistry findings and phenotype of the large granular lymphocytes in an Australian case series. Neutrophilia was the most common haematological abnormality, identified in 43% of dogs, and 84% of dogs with biochemistry data available had elevated serum gamma-glutamyl transferase. Five of the 40 dogs in this study exhibited concurrent neoplasia during the period of the study, demonstrating this is a relatively common clinical outcome in canine LGLL cases. In agreement with previous canine and human studies, the most common LGLL phenotype in dogs is CD3+, CD4- and CD8+. Further work is needed to define the variables predictive of the biological behaviour of LGLL in dogs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available