Haematologica
HOME HELP FEEDBACK TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Del Vecchio, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Del Vecchio, L
Haematologica, Vol 89, Issue 5, 594-598
Copyright © 2004 by Ferrata Storti Foundation


Journal Article

Recommended reporting format for flow cytometry diagnosis of acute leukemia

L Del Vecchio, B Brando, F Lanza, C Ortolani, G Pizzolo, G Semenzato, G Basso, and

Division of Immunohematology and Transfusion Medicine, A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy. ldelvec@tin.it

Although flow cytometry is increasingly used as a tool to diagnose hematologic malignancies, the reporting format of acute leukemia immunodiagnosis is still imprecise and sometimes vague, often reflecting old guidelines. Thus, the purpose of the present work was to make the reporting format for the immunological diagnosis of acute leukaemia easy and clear to understand. This work represents part of a more articulated series of technical guidelines that the Italian Society for Cytometry (GIC) is currently processing. Thirteen separate recommendations, covering all aspects of an acute leukemia cytometry report, are listed. According to our suggestions, the report must contain clear statements about: 1. demographic identification of patient; 2. identification of the hospital or division sending the sample; 3. type of specimen (bone marrow aspirate, peripheral blood, other biological fluids); 4. timing of observation (first diagnosis or follow-up); 5. diagnostic hypothesis made by the sender; 6. list of antigens and type of immunofluorescence analysis carried out; 7. absolute number of cells in the sample; 8. quality of the sample, in terms of viability; 9. general description of the gating procedure; 10. immunophenotype of blast cells; 11. description of cells surrounding blasts; 12. diagnostic conclusions; 13. definition of an antigen panel (when applicable) for the detection of minimal residual disease. As an example of a final report we present a case of acute myeloid leukaemia with t(8;21) translocation; in filling this report, we followed all the 13 points of the checklist described in the paper.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS
Copyright © 2004 by the Ferrata Storti Foundation.