The flow cytometric diagnosis of AML: Difference between revisions
From haematologyetc.co.uk
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Do the cells have flow cytometric features | |||
*Typically these will be (for more detail see table) | 1. '''Do the cells have flow cytometric features that support their primitive nature?'''</br> | ||
*In some cases there may be atypical features ( | *Typically these features will be: weak CD45 and expression of CD34 and/or CD117 but a wider panel may be considered (for more detail see table) | ||
*In some cases there may be atypical features where primitive nature is less clear, this generally concerns some monocytic cases or APL (see table for details) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Can we confirm myeloid nature? | Can we confirm myeloid nature? | ||
*Typical cases can generally be recognised by (see table for details) | *Typical cases can generally be recognised by (see table for details) | ||
Revision as of 17:13, 1 December 2023
1. Do the cells have flow cytometric features that support their primitive nature?
- Typically these features will be: weak CD45 and expression of CD34 and/or CD117 but a wider panel may be considered (for more detail see table)
- In some cases there may be atypical features where primitive nature is less clear, this generally concerns some monocytic cases or APL (see table for details)
Can we confirm myeloid nature?
- Typical cases can generally be recognised by (see table for details)
- Atypical cases can still be identified based on a minimal feature set (see table for details)
- In unusual cases an extended marker panel may allow lineage assignment (see Table for details)
Are there atypical features?
- Expected abberency
- Feature that may give concern