4.4 Article

Bone-marrow plasma cell burden correlates with IgM paraprotein concentration in Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 520-523

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2010.088591

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Correlations between the marrow histopathology and clinical findings in Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM) are not well defined, and the pathophysiology of the plasma cell involvement is poorly understood. The authors used a standardised immunohistological approach to the enumeration of B lymphocyte and plasma cell compartments in the bone-marrow trephine to investigate associations between bone-marrow morphology and clinical/laboratory indices. Methods In 80 newly diagnosed, untreated cases of WM, the authors determined the degree and pattern of B lymphocyte (CD20+) and plasma cell (CD138+) infiltration in the bone-marrow trephine, as defined by immunohistochemistry, and correlated the disease in the marrow with components of the international scoring system for WM (age, serum IgM paraprotein level, haemoglobin, platelet count and beta(2) microglobulin). Plasma cell clonality was assessed by kappa and lambda staining. Results Serum IgM paraprotein concentration was related to the plasma cell burden in the bone marrow (coefficient 0.231, p<0.005), but not the B lymphocytic infiltrate. Overall lymphoplasmacytic disease burden weakly correlated with severity of anaemia (coefficient 0.236, p=0.055). In 28/28 evaluated cases, plasma cells exhibited light chain restriction that was concordant with both that of the B lymphocytic infiltrate and paraprotein. Conclusions Bone-marrow features, in particular the degree of plasma cell infiltration, correlate with IgM paraprotein concentration at diagnosis in WM. The plasma cell compartment in this condition appears to be part of the neoplastic clone. In WM, specific evaluation of the plasma cell compartment in the bone marrow at baseline and following therapy may be valuable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据