Multicentric study underlining the interest of adding CD5, CD7 and CD56 expression assessment to the flow cytometric Ogata score in myelodysplastic syndromes and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms.
Fiche publication
Date publication
avril 2015
Journal
Haematologica
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Dr ROSSI Cédric
Tous les auteurs :
Bardet V, Wagner-Ballon O, Guy J, Morvan C, Debord C, Trimoreau F, Benayoun E, Chapuis N, Freynet N, Rossi C, Mathis S, Gourin MP, Toma A, Béné MC, Feuillard J, Guérin E, ,
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
Although numerous recent publications have demonstrated interest in multiparameter flow cytometry in the investigation of myelodysplastic disorders, it is perceived by many laboratory hematologists as difficult and expensive, requiring a high level of expertise. We report a multicentric open real-life study aimed at evaluating the added value of the technically simple flow cytometry score described by the Ogata group for the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes. A total of 652 patients were recruited prospectively in four different centers: 346 myelodysplastic syndromes, 53 myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms, and 253 controls. The Ogata score was assessed using CD45 and CD34 staining, with the addition of CD10 and CD19. Moreover, labeling of CD5, CD7 and CD56 for the evaluation of myeloid progenitors and monocytes was tested on a subset of 294 patients. On the whole series, the specificity of Ogata score reached 89%. Respective sensitivities were 54% for low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, 68% and 84% for type 1 and type 2 refractory anemia with excess of blasts, and 72% for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms. CD5 expression was poorly informative. When adding CD56 or CD7 labeling to the Ogata score, sensitivity rose to 66% for low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, to 89% for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms and to 97% for refractory anemia with excess of blasts. This large multicenter study confirms the feasibility of Ogata scoring in routine flow cytometry diagnosis but highlights its poor sensitivity in low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. The addition of CD7 and CD56 in flow cytometry panels improves the sensitivity but more sophisticated panels would be more informative.
Mots clés
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antigens, CD5, genetics, Antigens, CD56, genetics, Antigens, CD7, genetics, Diagnosis, Differential, Flow Cytometry, Gene Expression, Humans, Immunophenotyping, methods, Middle Aged, Myelodysplastic Syndromes, diagnosis, Myelodysplastic-Myeloproliferative Diseases, diagnosis, Sensitivity and Specificity
Référence
Haematologica. 2015 Apr;100(4):472-8