Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Early T cell precursor-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ETP-ALL) is a hematolymphoid malignancy where the blasts demonstrate T cell differentiation markers along with stem cell and myeloid antigen expression. The differential diagnosis of ETP-ALL from non-ETP ALL and mixed phenotype acute leukemia is often challenging due to its overlapping immunophenotypic picture with co-expression of myeloid antigens. In this study, we endeavored to describe the immune-phenotype profile of ETP-ALL in our patients and compared the utility of four different scoring systems for better discrimination of these entities.
Methods: This retrospective analysis included 31 ETP-ALL out of 860 acute leukemia cases consecutively diagnosed at the two tertiary care centers. Flowcytometry-based immunophenotype was reviewed for all the cases, and the utility of four flow-based objective scorings was assessed for the diagnosis of ETP-ALL. Receiver operating curves were drawn to compare the different flow-based scoring systems.
Results: The prevalence of ETP-ALL was 40% (n = 31/77 T-ALL) in our study group, comprised mainly of adults with a median age of 20 years. The five-marker scoring system had the maximum area under the curve, followed by the seven-marker scoring system. A cut-off of ≥2.5 was more specific (sensitivity: 91%; specificity: 100%), while a score of ≥1.5 was more sensitive but slightly less specific (sensitivity: 94%, specificity: 96%).
Conclusion: The WHO criteria for the diagnosis of ETP-ALL should be followed across all laboratories to avoid confusion and for better treatment stratification. Flow-based scoring systems can be objectively employed for better detection of cases.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.22119 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!