4.7 Article

Standardization of flow cytometry in myelodysplastic syndromes: a report from an international consortium and the European LeukemiaNet Working Group

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1730-1741

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2012.30

关键词

myelodysplastic syndromes; flow cytometry; standardization; ELN; consensus

资金

  1. European LeukemiaNet (ELN WP8)
  2. 'Elimination of Leukaemia Fund' (UK)
  3. Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research (UK)
  4. Alexion (UK)
  5. Amgen Oncology (UK, Beckman Coulter (Krefeld, Germany)
  6. Becton Dickinson (UK)
  7. Celgene (Germany and UK)
  8. Cooperative Research Thematic Network on Cancer from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Madrid, Spain) [RD06/0020/0035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow cytometry (FC) is increasingly recognized as an important tool in the diagnosis and prognosis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, validation of current assays and agreement upon the techniques are prerequisites for its widespread acceptance and application in clinical practice. Therefore, a working group was initiated (Amsterdam, 2008) to discuss and propose standards for FC in MDS. In 2009 and 2010, representatives from 23, mainly European, institutes participated in the second and third European LeukemiaNet (ELN) MDS workshops. In the present report, minimal requirements to analyze dysplasia are refined. The proposed core markers should enable a categorization of FC results in cytopenic patients as 'normal', 'suggestive of', or 'diagnostic of' MDS. An FC report should include a description of validated FC abnormalities such as aberrant marker expression on myeloid progenitors and, furthermore, dysgranulopoiesis and/or dysmonocytopoiesis, if at least two abnormalities are evidenced. The working group is dedicated to initiate further studies to establish robust diagnostic and prognostic FC panels in MDS. An ultimate goal is to refine and improve diagnosis and prognostic scoring systems. Finally, the working group stresses that FC should be part of an integrated diagnosis rather than a separate technique.

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

4.7
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