4.0 Article

Unexplained Macrocytosis

期刊

SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 121-125

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3182824cdf

关键词

macrocytosis; myelodysplatic syndrome; cytopenias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Macrocytosis is a relatively common finding in adult patients undergoing blood cell counting. Approximately 10% of patients will have unexplained macrocytosis after laboratory evaluation. Data on the approach to patients with unexplained macrocytosis are limited. Methods: To investigate this topic and help delineate an approach to this condition, the records of 9779 patients diagnosed in our institution between 1995 and 2005 as having macrocytosis were reviewed. Patients with evidence of liver disease, alcohol abuse, hypothyroidism, folate or vitamin B-12 deficiency, hemolysis, or use of any drugs known to cause macrocytosis were excluded. Results: Forty-three patients were found to have unexplained macrocytosis. The median follow-up was 4 years. A total of 11.6% patients developed a primary bone marrow disorder (two B-cell lymphomas, two with myelodysplastic syndrome, one plasma cell disorder), 16.3% developed worsening cytopenias, 69.7% had stable disease, and 2.3% resolved. The median time to first cytopenia was 18 months, and the mean time to diagnosis of bone marrow disorder was 31.6 months. The outcomes were not significantly different when comparing patients with or without anemia upon diagnosis. The probability of a bone marrow biopsy to establish a diagnosis of a primary disorder was 33.3% in patients with macrocytosis without anemia compared with 75% in patients with macrocytosis with anemia. Conclusions: Patients with unexplained macrocytosis still require close follow-up. We suggest a strategy of follow-up with blood cell counting every 6 months. Bone marrow biopsy should be performed when cytopenias are present because this approach may provide a higher yield of diagnosis and aid with therapeutic decisions.

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

4.0
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