4.2 Review

How I investigate chronic myelomonocytic leukemia

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.13145

关键词

CMML; monocytosis; Myelodysplastic neoplasms; myeloproliferative neoplasms; WHO classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2016 revised 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of hematopoietic neoplasms updated the diagnostic criteria for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Persistent peripheral blood monocytosis of at least 1 x 10(9)/L and a percentage of monocytes >= 10% of the circulating white blood cell count (WBC) are both prerequisite criteria for this diagnosis. CMML represents the prototype of overlapping myeloid neoplasms with concurrent myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic features. However, clinical presentation is heterogeneous, with cases showing prevailing dysplastic features and others a predominant proliferative phenotype. Accounting for this diversity, two variants of CMML are recognized: dysplastic CMML defined by WBC < 13 x 10(9)/L and proliferative CMML with WBC >= 13 x 10(9)/L often showing features mimicking a myeloproliferative neoplasm. Although not an official WHO category, the oligomonocytic variant of CMML is defined by relative monocytosis with an absolute monocyte count of 0.5-0.9 x 10(9)/L. It can be considered a pre-phase, as it frequently anticipates the development of an overt, classic CMML. In an attempt at improving disease prognostication, the blast count based grading system for CMML of the WHO 2008 Classification has been expanded in 2016 to include a new CMML-0 category. Lastly, the large body of knowledge on the molecular events occurring in CMML has been used to assist diagnosis and assess prognosis. Despite the step forwards, diagnosis of CMML still remains one of exclusion as no clinical, pathologic or molecular findings are specific for this disease. The current review brings insight into the spectrum of CMML and provides practical advice to approach suspected cases of CMML.

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