Original Article Immunophenotyping of Leukemia in Children ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Immunophenotyping results are listed in Table 3. The most prevalent line in flow cytometrywas pre-B-cell, 29 patients (46.77%).Table 3: Frequency distribution of the most common markers according to leukemia type and morphologicaltypeMarker Leukemia morphological type Leukemia type TotalCD19 number% in typeCD10 number% in typeHLA- numberDR % in typeCD34 number% in typeCD45 number% in typeL1 L2 M2 M3 M4 M7 UnknownAML22 24 1 1 0 0 088 92.3 50 33.3 0 0 020 23 0 0 0 0 080 88.5 0 0 0 0 017 19 2 2 1 0 268 73.1 100 66.7 50 0 1008 7 1 2 1 1 132 26.9 50 66.7 50 50 503 3 2 2 2 1 212 11.5 100 66.7 100 50 100ALL4690.24384.363670.581529.4611.8AML218.200763.64654.5981.848804371.74326.662133.871524.2The positive predictive value of CD19 for ALL is 95.8 % and negative p-value of it is 35.7%.Also positive p-value of CD10 for ALL is 100% and negative p-value of it is 42.1%. AboutHLA-DR, positive and negative p-value is 88% and 78.4 %, respectively.In this study, in addition to immunophenotyping, some factors such as hemoglobin value andcount of WBC were considered.Hemoglobin value was in 27 (43.5%) patients less than 7.5 mg/dl, in 25 (40.3%) between 7.5-10 mg/dl, and in 10 (16.1%) more than 10 mg/dl. In ALL patients, frequency was 20 (39.2%),25 (49%) and 6 (11.8%), respectively. In AML patients,in seven (63.6%) patients less than7.5 mg/dl and in 4 more than 10 mg/dl.Difference between AML and ALL was significant(P=0.007).The count of WBC in ALL was in 29 (58%) less than 2000, in 11 (22%) between 2000 to50000, and10 (20%) more than 50000. One patient has (2%) not report. The results in AMLpatients were 4 (36.4%), 3 (27.3%) and 4 (36.4%), respectively.Difference between AML andALL was not significant (P=0.379).The count of neutrophil was in 7 (14.3%) patients less than 500, in 8 (16.3%) between 500and 1000, in 7 (14.3%) between 1000 and 1500, in 27(55.1%) more than 1500, and 2 patients(3.92%) not reported. This count in AML patients, 2 (22.2%) was less than 500, 2 between1000 and 1500, 5 (55.6%) more than 1500, and 2 (18.18%) had not reported. Differencebetween AML and ALL was not significant (P=0.555).DiscussionIn the present discussion, HLA-DRwas 70.58 % in ALL patients and CD19 was the mostcommon marker in these patients. Philip Lanzkowsky has demonstrated that the mostcommon marker is HLA-DR, and CD19 is the second most important. The prevalence of L1is almost same as L2 in present study, but in Lanzkowsky book, L1 was 84% and L2 was 15%in ALL (11).According to other studies, it is possible to be a relationship between higher prevalence ofHLA-DR and L1 and then connection between markers and morphology was considered hereand its results are presented as following.In our investigation the prevalence of markers in L1, which was found in 25 patients andinvolved 49% of all of ALL patients, was CD19, CD10 and I3 (HLA-DR) and also in L2,which involved 51% remaining of ALL patients, was as same as L1. Therefore the incidence118 Iranian Journal of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Vol 1. No 4.
of markers in ALL patients was CD19 (90.2%), CD10 (84.36 %) and HLA-DR (70.58%) ingeneral. It is noteworthy that in this investigation the majority of considered population wasALL patients. Based on frequency of HLA-DR and morphology type in our results, it may beconcluded that ALL prognosis is poor.Reviewing other studies express that there is a few differences from ours in some studies andsome of them confirm our results (9, 12 and 13).Asvadi Kermani in northwestern, Tabriz of Iran (2002) showed the most frequent markers inALL patients were CD7 (11-28%), CD2 (5-21%) and CD19 (3-14%). CD10 (1-5%) andCD20 (9%) were in the next positions (10). In this study there was not especial age range.Similarly, Haxia Tong et al (2010) studied on 113 patients with ALL in China. In this study,the most prevalent markers of B-cells included CD19, CD10, CD22 and CD20. Frequency ofthese markers was 99%, 82.5%, 74.8% and 37.5% respectively (9).In general, CD19 was found to be common in this and other studies. Wenxiu et al, (2005)achieved those results in B-cell line. They studied on 81 ALL patients including 43 childrenand 38 adults. In this investigation CD5 and CD7 were the most common markers in T-cellline (12). It should be noted that there are variety in these antigens in ALL patients ofdifferent regions. In research of Shen and colleges (2003) on 222 Chinese patients withleukemia, different results were obtained. In this population, 124 patients were ALL including94 patients with B- cell line and 30 people in T-cell line. In this study CD13 was the mostcommon antigen and after it, the most frequent markers were CD15 (11.3%), CD11b (6.5%)and CD33 (4.3%) (13).The frequency of the different antigens was various in various lines of ALL. Study of Ramiaret al (2007) showed in Pre-B1, Pre-B2 and Pre-B of B-cell ALL, frequency of CD20 increasesand CD10 decreases (14).In present study, the most common markers in AML patients were CD45, I3 (HLA-DR) andCD19 in M2, CD45, I3 (HLA-DR) and CD34 in M3, CD45, CD33, I3, CD34 AND CD64 inM4 and CD34, CD45, CD41, CD61 and CD7 in M7. CD45 (81.8%), I3 (HLA-DR) (63.64%)and CD34 (54.5%) were the most common antigens.The most markers in Asvadi Kermani research were CD13 (71%) and CD33 (74%) in M1,CD33 in M2 and CD13 in M3 (10).Tong HX et al, (2009) investigated the immunophenotypic subtype profiles of 192 patientswith AML. The results showed the CD33, CD13, myeloproxidase (MPO) and CD117 werethe most commonly expressed antigens in AML. CD117 expressed in 84.6% of AML-M3cases (15). Also Shen et al observed that the most common antigens in AML were CD7(12.8%), CD19 (6.4%) and CD2 (5.1%) (12). Sovariety of markers is observed in differentAML subgroups. Nevertheless, the presence of markers like CD34 is remarkable in this studysuch that frequency of CD34 is 65.1% and in our study is 54.5%.In our study, prevalence of some markers in ALL and AML patients were different from otherstudies and some of them were the same. These results could be used for differential diagnosisof AML from ALL. Present investigation was done on a small population of children, andfurther studies with bigger sample size will be needed to achieve a clear conclusion.AcknowledgmentThanks to colleagues in the oncology department of Gorgan Taleghani hospital. This articlehas no conflict of interests.Iranian Journal of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Vol 1. No 4.119
Page 1 and 2: Original ArticleImmunophenotyping o
Page 3: ResultsAnalyzed data of 62 patients

Original Article Immunophenotyping of Leukemia in Children ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?