Comparison of plasma cell bone marrow counts by different methods in patients diagnosed with plasma cell disorders.

Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1016/j.htct.2024.06.002
Claudia Monteiro, Paulo Campregher, Denise Pasqualin, Nydia Bacal, Liliana Suganuma, Elvira Velloso
{"title":"Comparison of plasma cell bone marrow counts by different methods in patients diagnosed with plasma cell disorders.","authors":"Claudia Monteiro, Paulo Campregher, Denise Pasqualin, Nydia Bacal, Liliana Suganuma, Elvira Velloso","doi":"10.1016/j.htct.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Plasma cell quantification in bone marrow is important for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of plasma cell diseases. It can be performed by several methods such as aspiration, imprint and flow cytometry, and biopsy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare plasma cell counts at diagnosis of plasma cell diseases using different methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An observational study was carried out of laboratory results of adult patients with plasma cell diseases, who underwent aspiration, imprint cytology, flow cytometry (CD38, C138) and biopsy in a single institution between January 2015 and May 2021. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement between different methods with results stratified into three groups: <10%; 10-59% and ≥60% of infiltration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-seven cases were studied: 59.7% were men with a median age of 70 (range: 32-85) years. The diagnoses were multiple myeloma in 61%, gammopathy of undetermined significance in 25.4%, smoldering myeloma in 6% and other plasma cell dyscrasias in 7.6%. Less than 10% infiltration was found in 32 (47.7%), 35 (52.2%), 44 (65.7%) and 25 (37.3%) of patients, respectively by aspiration, imprint cytology, flow cytometry and biopsy. Infiltration ≥60% was detected in 7 (10.4%), 4 (6.0%), 2 (3.0%) and 21 (31.3%) cases, respectively. There was disagreement between the results in 37 (55.2%) of patients. Of these, 28 had greater infiltration in biopsies. The concordance (Kappa index) of biopsy with aspiration, imprint and flow cytometry was 0.501, 0.408 and 0.17; of aspiration with imprint and flow cytometry, it was 0.738 and 0.541 and between imprint and flow cytometry, it was 0.573%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only aspiration and imprint cytology results agreed. Biopsy showed greater infiltrations than the other methods, but aspiration, and imprint and flow cytometry provided additional data in the diagnosis and thus should also be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94026,"journal":{"name":"Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy","volume":" ","pages":"S202-S207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.htct.2024.06.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Plasma cell quantification in bone marrow is important for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of plasma cell diseases. It can be performed by several methods such as aspiration, imprint and flow cytometry, and biopsy.

Objectives: To compare plasma cell counts at diagnosis of plasma cell diseases using different methods.

Methods: An observational study was carried out of laboratory results of adult patients with plasma cell diseases, who underwent aspiration, imprint cytology, flow cytometry (CD38, C138) and biopsy in a single institution between January 2015 and May 2021. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement between different methods with results stratified into three groups: <10%; 10-59% and ≥60% of infiltration.

Results: Sixty-seven cases were studied: 59.7% were men with a median age of 70 (range: 32-85) years. The diagnoses were multiple myeloma in 61%, gammopathy of undetermined significance in 25.4%, smoldering myeloma in 6% and other plasma cell dyscrasias in 7.6%. Less than 10% infiltration was found in 32 (47.7%), 35 (52.2%), 44 (65.7%) and 25 (37.3%) of patients, respectively by aspiration, imprint cytology, flow cytometry and biopsy. Infiltration ≥60% was detected in 7 (10.4%), 4 (6.0%), 2 (3.0%) and 21 (31.3%) cases, respectively. There was disagreement between the results in 37 (55.2%) of patients. Of these, 28 had greater infiltration in biopsies. The concordance (Kappa index) of biopsy with aspiration, imprint and flow cytometry was 0.501, 0.408 and 0.17; of aspiration with imprint and flow cytometry, it was 0.738 and 0.541 and between imprint and flow cytometry, it was 0.573%.

Conclusions: Only aspiration and imprint cytology results agreed. Biopsy showed greater infiltrations than the other methods, but aspiration, and imprint and flow cytometry provided additional data in the diagnosis and thus should also be performed.

通过不同方法比较确诊为浆细胞疾病患者的浆细胞骨髓计数。
简介骨髓中浆细胞的定量对于浆细胞疾病的诊断、预后和治疗非常重要。它可以通过多种方法进行,如抽吸、印迹和流式细胞术以及活组织检查:比较使用不同方法诊断浆细胞疾病时的浆细胞计数:方法:对2015年1月至2021年5月期间在一家机构接受抽吸、印迹细胞学、流式细胞术(CD38、C138)和活检的成年浆细胞疾病患者的实验室结果进行观察研究。采用类内相关系数评估不同方法之间的一致性,结果分为三组:结果:研究了 67 个病例:59.7% 为男性,中位年龄为 70 岁(范围:32-85)。61%的病例被诊断为多发性骨髓瘤,25.4%的病例被诊断为意义不明的丙种球蛋白病,6%的病例被诊断为燃烧性骨髓瘤,7.6%的病例被诊断为其他浆细胞异常。通过抽吸、印迹细胞学、流式细胞术和活组织检查,分别有32(47.7%)、35(52.2%)、44(65.7%)和25(37.3%)名患者的浸润低于10%。浸润≥60%的病例分别有 7 例(10.4%)、4 例(6.0%)、2 例(3.0%)和 21 例(31.3%)。37例(55.2%)患者的检测结果不一致。其中,28 例患者的活组织切片有较多浸润。活检与抽吸、印模和流式细胞术的一致性(Kappa指数)分别为0.501、0.408和0.17;抽吸与印模和流式细胞术的一致性为0.738和0.541,印模和流式细胞术的一致性为0.573%:结论:只有抽吸和印模细胞学结果一致。活组织检查比其他方法显示出更大的浸润,但抽吸、印模和流式细胞术为诊断提供了更多数据,因此也应进行活组织检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信