4.2 Article

Differential diagnosis of myelofibrosis based on WHO 2008 criteria: Acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis, acute megakaryoblastic leukemia with myelofibrosis, primary myelofibrosis and myelodysplastic syndrome with myelofibrosis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.12101

关键词

Myelofibrosis; acute megakaryoblastic leukemia; acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis; myelodysplastic syndrome; primary myelofibrosis

资金

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences [2010-109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to characterize clinicopathological features of acute panmyelosis with myelofibrosis (APMF), acute megakaryoblastic leukemia with myelofibrosis (AMKL-MF), primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and myelodysplastic syndrome with myelofibrosis (MDS-MF) in order to provide the keys to the differential diagnosis of bone marrow (BM) fibrosis. MethodsWe compared age, gender, splenomegaly, serum lactate dehydrogenase level, blood cell counts, blast counts in peripheral blood (PB) and BM, megakaryocyte counts, BM cellularity, dysplasia, and the karyotypes of patients with APMF (n=6), AMKL-MF (n=7), PMF (n=44), and MDS-MF (n=44). ResultsAPMF showed hyperplasia of all three lineages, increase in megakaryocyte count with dysplasia and frequent abnormal karyotypes. AMKL-MF was associated with elevated BM blast counts, decreased BM megakaryocyte count with rare megakaryocytic dysplasia and chromosome 21 abnormality. PMF patients displayed splenomegaly, rare blasts in PB/BM, and JAK2 V617F mutation. MDS-MF patients showed pancytopenia, dysplasia in all three lineages and recurrent chromosomal abnormalities involving chromosome 5,7,12, and 17. ConclusionsAlthough differential diagnosis among APMF, AMKL-MF, PMF, and MDS-MF is very challenging due to the overlapping clinical and morphological features, meticulous investigation of the patient with respect to splenomegaly, blood cell count, PB and BM findings, and karyotype will serve as a guide to correct diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据