Abstract
The prognostic significance of flow cytometric immunophenotyping (FCI) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been controversial. In this study, we re-investigated the possible role of FCI in the prediction of AML relapse following standard chemotherapy. A total of 209 AML cases with follow-up information were analyzed. Among those, 78 cases were in remission (M:F=44/34; mean age of 48.9 years) and 131 had relapse (M:F=71/60; mean age of 51.3 years). The expression of CD34, HLA-DR or a combination of both was significantly different between the remission and relapse groups for all AML as well as AML without t(15;17). None of the pammyeloid markers or their combinations analyzed was found to correlate with treatment outcomes. Complex cytogenetic abnormalities were more likely associated with relapse group than with remission group, but were not statistically significant after excluding AML with t(15;17). In conclusion, FCI is useful in predicting treatment outcome and disease relapse in AML.
Keywords: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, chromosome translocation, cytogenetics, prognosis
Introduction
Flow cytometric immunophenotyping (FCI) has a well established role as a diagnostic modality in acute leukemias, particularly as a tool for assigning lineage and facilitating further pathologic classifications [1–14]. However, cytogenetic evaluation constitutes the predominant method for assessing prognosis in acute leukemias [15–18]. Although several authors have investigated the prognostic implications of immunophenotype in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [17, 19–27], no clear consensus has emerged regarding the role of FCI in predicting treatment response, relapse, or overall survival.
While several studies have failed to demonstrate any significant association between FCI and prognosis, others have reported significant correlation between several immunophenotypic markers and clinical outcomes, albeit without universal reproducibility [2, 28–37]. Immunophenotypic markers that, in various studies, have been implicated as predictive of adverse outcomes include CD7, CD9, CD11b, CD13, CD14, CD33, CD34, CD56, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) [35, 38–44]. In addition, co-expression of CD34 and HLA-DR has been shown to be an independent predictor of failure to achieve complete remission (CR) [19, 39, 45–49]. Another study ascribed a more favorable prognosis to cases in which myeloblasts demonstrate a panmyeloid phenotype, co-expressing myeloperoxidase (MPO), CD13, CD33, CDw65 and CD117 [22].
In this report, we retrospectively analyze FCI and cytogenetic findings in 209 cases of AML with or without relapse. Our aim was to determine whether any independent correlation exists between immunophenotype and probability of disease relapse.
Materials and Methods
Case Selection
AML cases diagnosed at Emory University Hospital between August 1997 and March 2003 were retrieved from our pathology electronic database. Cases meeting World Health Organization criteria for AML with available immunophenotyping results and appropriate follow-up information were included and corresponding cytogenetic results were obtained. All AML subtypes were included in the sample population, without exclusion of secondary AML or subtypes with specific cytogenetic abnormalities. Outcomes were defined as complete remission (CR, no evidence of disease at least 10 weeks after induction therapy) or relapse (persistent disease or recurrent disease 10 weeks or greater following induction chemotherapy). Any recurrence of disease occurring before October 2003 was recorded, along with the immunophenotypic and cytogenetic profiles at relapse.
Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping
Flow cytometric immunophenotyping was performed on bone marrow aspirate or peripheral blood samples collected in RPMI 1640 culture medium. Specimen processing was performed according to a routine red cell lysis protocol. Single cell suspensions were stained with various 4 fluorochrome-conjugated antibody combinations and analyzed in reference to isotype-matched fluorochrome-conjugated control antibodies. Samples were stained with monoclonal antibodies for the following antigens: CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD7, CD8, CD10, CD11b, CD11c, CD13, CD14, CD15, CD16, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD25, CD33, CD34, CD36, CD38, CD45, CD56, CD103, CD117 and HLA-DR (Becton Dickinson Biosciences, San Diego, CA). Although intracytoplasmic staining on permeabilized samples for myeloperoxidase (MPO) and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) was performed on selected samples when deemed necessary for clinical classification purposes at the time of diagnosis, these results were not included in the analysis due to insufficient numbers. Samples were acquired on a dual-laser FACSCalibur flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson Biosciences) and subsequently analyzed using the CellQuest computer software program (Becton Dickinson Biosciences). Myeloblast immunophenotype was determined with an antigen defined as positive when at least 20% of the myeloblasts expressed the marker at a fluorescence intensity above cutoffs established using the corresponding isotype-matched control antibody.
Cytogenetic Studies
All cytogenetic studies were performed at Emory Medical Laboratories according to standard protocols with results reported in accordance with the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) guidelines. Karyotype and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization results at initial presentation and at relapse were retrieved and recorded along with the corresponding FCI results.
Statistical Analysis
Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the total sample, both including and excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) cases, for correlation between immunophenotype and remission status with endpoints defined as maintained CR or relapse. Multivariate analysis was adjusted for impact of age (less than or greater than 60 years old) and cytogenetic prognostication categories (favorable, intermediate, or unfavorable prognoses). Odds ratios (with corresponding 95% confidence intervals) for relapse were calculated with results less than 1 indicating less likelihood of relapse and results greater than 1 indicating greater likelihood of relapse. Significant results were defined as those with p<0.05.
Results
Clinicopathologic Features
A total of 209 AML cases were retrieved. 78 of the patients were in CR and 131 patients had documented persistent disease or disease relapse. The cohort included 26 cases of APL with documented t(15;17) and all statistical analyses were performed in tandem on the entire patient sample and on the sample excluding these APL cases. Clinical and biological characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics by outcome for both total sample (n=209) and AML only (n=183)
| Patient characteristics | Total AML sample (n=209) | AML excluding APL (n=183) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remission n (%) | Relapse n (%) | Remission n (%) | Relapse n (%) | |
| Age | ||||
| <60 | 58 (27.75) | 78 (37.32) | 41 (22.40) | 76 (41.53) |
| 60+ | 20 (9.57) | 53 (25.36) | 13 (7.10) | 53 (28.96) |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 34 (16.27) | 60 (28.71) | 22 (12.02) | 58 (31.69) |
| Male | 44 (21.05) | 71 (33.97) | 32 (17.49) | 71 (38.80) |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| AML excluding APL | 54 (25.84) | 129 (61.72) | 54 (29.51) | 129 (70.49) |
| APL with t(15;17) | 24 (11.48) | 2 (0.96) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| Cytogenetics | ||||
| Good | 31 (15.58) | 18 (9.05) | 7 (4.05) | 16 (9.25) |
| t(8;21) | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 |
| t(15;17) | 24 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| inv6 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Intermediate | 30 (15.08) | 75 (37.69) | 30 (17.34) | 75 (43.35) |
| no abnormality | 26 | 53 | 26 | 53 |
| +8 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 |
| other | 3 | 16 | 3 | 16 |
| Poor | 14 (7.04) | 31 (15.58) | 14 (8.09) | 31 (17.92) |
| 11q23 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 10 |
| del(5q)/−5 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 9 |
| −7 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 12 |
| abn(3q) | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| t(9;22) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| complex | 1 | 14 | 1 | 14 |
Immunophenotypic Findings
Frequencies of expression for 24 surface antigens in AML patients, both including (n=209) and excluding (n=183) APL cases, are presented in Table 2. Frequencies of selected combinations of antigen expression and/or cytogenetic findings are also shown.
Table 2.
Prevalence of antigen markers for both total sample and AML excluding APL
| Antigen markers | Total AML sample (n=209) | AML excluding APL (n=183) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Percent | n | Percent | |
| Single markers | ||||
| CD2+ | 38 | 18.18 | 34 | 18.58 |
| CD4+ | 131 | 62.68 | 121 | 66.12 |
| CD5+ | 6 | 2.87 | 6 | 3.28 |
| CD7+ | 58 | 27.75 | 58 | 31.69 |
| CD8+ | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| CD10+ | 28 | 13.40 | 28 | 15.30 |
| C11B+ | 86 | 41.15 | 83 | 45.36 |
| C11C+ | 89 | 42.58 | 89 | 48.63 |
| CD13+ | 190 | 90.91 | 165 | 90.16 |
| CD14+ | 34 | 16.27 | 34 | 18.58 |
| CD15+ | 139 | 66.51 | 123 | 67.21 |
| CD16+ | 3 | 1.44 | 3 | 1.64 |
| CD19+ | 17 | 8.13 | 16 | 8.74 |
| CD20+ | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| CD22+ | 5 | 2.39 | 5 | 2.73 |
| CD23+ | 7 | 3.35 | 7 | 3.83 |
| CD25+ | 22 | 10.53 | 22 | 12.02 |
| CD33+ | 181 | 86.60 | 156 | 85.25 |
| CD34+ | 149 | 71.29 | 140 | 76.50 |
| CD36+ | 71 | 33.97 | 68 | 37.16 |
| CD38+ | 192 | 91.87 | 170 | 92.90 |
| CD56+ | 41 | 19.62 | 39 | 21.31 |
| CD117+ | 167 | 79.90 | 146 | 79.78 |
| HLA-DR+ | 157 | 79.29 | 155 | 90.12 |
| Combination markers | ||||
| CD34+/HLA-DR+ | 124 | 59.33 | 123 | 67.21 |
| CD13+/CD33+/CD117+ | 136 | 65.07 | 116 | 63.39 |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+/CD7+ | 46 | 22.01 | 46 | 25.14 |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+/CD56+ | 20 | 9.57 | 20 | 10.93 |
| CD34+/CD7+ | 51 | 24.40 | 51 | 27.87 |
| CD34+/CD56+ | 26 | 12.44 | 25 | 13.66 |
| CD11B+/CD11C+/CD36+/CD14+ (must express 3 of 4) | 50 | 23.92 | 50 | 27.32 |
| (n=199) | (n=173) | |||
| CD56+ with t(15;17) | 2 | 1.01 | 0 | 0.00 |
| CD56+ with t(8;21) | 2 | 1.01 | 2 | 1.16 |
| CD56+ with inv(16) | 2 | 1.01 | 2 | 1.16 |
The most frequently expressed antigen was the non-specific lymphoid progenitor marker CD38 (92% of all cases).This was followed by the myeloid lineage markers CD13 (91%), CD33 (87%), and CD117 (80%). Also demonstrating relatively high prevalence rates were the hematopoietic progenitor cell markers CD34 (71%) and HLA-DR (79%). Monocytic markers were moderately frequent: including CD4 (63%), CD11b (41%), CD11c (43%), CD14 (16%), and CD36 (34%). CD7, a T cell antigen known to show aberrant expression in a subset of AML cases, was positive in 28% of all cases. Of note, another T cell antigen, CD2, was expressed in a considerable number of cases (18%). B cell markers CD10, CD19, and CD22 were present in 13%, 8%, and 2% of all cases, respectively.
Not surprisingly, CD34 and HLA-DR were expressed in a higher percentage of cases when APL patients were excluded from the group. This increase was seen for these markers when assessed individually (CD34+ in 71% of total sample and 77% of AML excluding APL sample; HLA-DR in 79% and 90%, respectively) as well as when both markers were co-expressed (59% and 67%, respectively).
Other combinations of co-expressed antigens that were chosen partially based on results from previous studies were analyzed. Of note, co-expression of all 3 pan-myeloid markers included in the panel was present in 65% of all cases. Cases showing strong evidence of monocytic differentiation (that is, expressing at least 3 of CD11b, CD11c, CD36, and CD14) comprised 24% of all cases. Only 2 cases of AML with t(8;21) demonstrated CD56 expression. Similarly, CD56 expression was only seen in 6 of the cases with favorable cytogenetic findings.
Cytogenetic Features
Cytogenetic findings were available for 199 of 209 cases. Of the translocations that have been associated with a favorable prognosis—namely t(8;21), inv(16), and t(15;17)—31 of 49 patients (63%) were in remission at the completion of the follow-up period, while 18 (37%) had relapsed. Of note, only t(15;17) was significantly associated with maintained remission status (p<0.05). Of the 45 patients with unfavorable cytogenetic findings–that is, del(5q)/−5, −7, abnormal 3q, abnormal 11q23, or t(9;22)— 31 (69%) had relapsed and 14 (31%) were still in remission at the completion of the study. Of 105 patients in the intermediate cytogenetics category—including trisomy 8, normal karyotype, or cytogenetic abnormalities other than the above–75 (71%) had relapsed and 30 (29%) were in remission.
Correlation of Immunophenotype with Clinical Outcomes
In the entire sample, 78 (37%) patients were in CR and 131 (63%) had relapsed. When APL cases were excluded from the analysis, 54 (30%) maintained CR status, while 129 (70%) had relapsed. Analysis of the individual markers in the entire sample demonstrated significantly increased likelihood of relapse (p<0.05) in cases expressing CD34 (OR=4.24; 95% CI=2.25–7.98) and HLA-DR (OR=8.85; 95% CI=4.04–19.35). Co-expression of CD34 and HLA-DR was also significantly associated with relapse (OR=8.05; 95% CI=4.27–15.19). Alternatively, CD15 (OR=0.46; 95% CI=0.24–0.86) and CD33 (OR=0.32; 95% CI=0.12–0.86) correlated with maintenance of CR (Table 3).
Table 3.
Antigen marker as a predictor of relapse for total AML
| Antigen Markers | Total AML sample (n=209) | |
|---|---|---|
| OR 95%CIa | AOR 95%CIb | |
| CD15− | Referent | Referent |
| CD15+ | 0.46 (0.24, 0.86)** | 0.58 (0.30, 1.14) ns |
| CD33− | Referent | Referent |
| CD33+ | 0.32 (0.12, 0.86)** | 0.41 (0.14, 1.18) ns |
| CD34− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+ | 4.24 (2.25, 7.98)** | 4.08 (2.06, 8.04)** |
| HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| HLA-DR+ | 8.85 (4.04, 19.35)** | 6.99 (2.92, 16.71)** |
| CD34−/HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+ | 8.05 (4.27, 15.19)** | 7.05 (3.58, 13.87)** |
Unadjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals;
Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals – adjusted for age (less than 60 years or 60+ years) and cytogenetics (good, intermediate or poor);
statistically significant at p<0.05;
ns: statistically not significant.
When APL cases were excluded from the analysis sample, cases showing CD34 (OR=3.10; 95% CI=1.52–6.32) or HLA-DR (OR=3.05; 95% CI=1.09–8.49) expression, in addition to those co-expressing CD34 and HLA-DR (OR=5.25; 95% CI=2.64–10.41), remained significantly associated with relapse in the bivariate analysis. Also, CD13 expression in the APL-excluded group correlated with relapse (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.02–8.19). CD2 (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.18–0.83), CD10 (OR=0.42; 95% CI=0.18–0.95), CD11b (OR=0.50; 95% CI=0.26–0.95), CD14 (OR=0.45; 95%CI=0.21–0.97), CD15 (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17–0.78), and CD36 (OR=0.47; 95% CI=0.24–0.98) all correlated with maintenance of CR. In addition, cases expressing 3 of 4 of the monocytic markers CD11b, CD11c, CD36, and CD14 were also associated with CR (OR=0.46; 95% CI=0.23–0.91) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Antigen marker as a predictor of relapse for AML excluding APL
| Antigen Markers | AML excluding APL sample (n=183) | |
|---|---|---|
| OR 95%CIa | AOR 95%CIb | |
| CD2− | Referent | Referent |
| CD2+ | 0.39 (0.18, 0.83)** | 0.40 (0.17, 0.94)** |
| CD10− | Referent | Referent |
| CD10+ | 0.42 (0.18, 0.95)** | 0.37 (0.15, 0.90)** |
| CD11b− | Referent | Referent |
| CD11b+ | 0.50 (0.26, 0.95)** | 0.55 (0.28, 1.11) ns |
| CD13− | Referent | Referent |
| CD13+ | 3.44 (1.28, 9.27)** | 2.88 (1.02, 8.19)** |
| CD14− | Referent | Referent |
| CD14+ | 0.45 (0.21, 0.97)** | 0.47 (0.20, 1.11) ns |
| CD15− | Referent | Referent |
| CD15+ | 0.36 (0.17, 0.78)** | 0.42 (0.19, 0.94)** |
| CD34− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+ | 3.10 (1.52, 6.32)** | 3.06 (1.43, 6.55)** |
| CD36− | Referent | Referent |
| CD36+ | 0.47 (0.24, 0.89)** | 0.48 (0.24, 0.95)** |
| HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| HLA-DR+ | 3.05 (1.09, 8.49)** | 3.23 (1.09, 9.60)** |
| CD34−/HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+ | 5.25 (2.64, 10.41)** | 5.21 (2.51, 10.84)** |
| CD11B+/CD11C+/CD36+/CD14+ (less than 3 of 4) | Referent | Referent |
| CD11B+/CD11C+/CD36+/CD14+ (at least 3 of 4) | 0.46 (0.23, 0.91)** | 0.49 (0.24, 1.02) |
Unadjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals;
Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals – adjusted for age (less than 60 years or 60+ years) and cytogenetics (good, intermediate or poor);
statistically significant at p<0.05;
ns: statistically not significant.
In the multivariate analysis, with adjustment for age and cytogenetic results, CD34 (OR=4.08; 95% CI=2.06–8.04) and HLA-DR (OR=6.99; 95% CI=2.92–16.71) expression, as well as co-expression of these markers (OR=7.05; 95% CI=3.58–13.87), remained significantly associated with increased relapse rate when all cases were included in the analysis. Importantly, these continued to show significance when APL cases were excluded. The multivariate analysis in the APL-excluded group also showed continued correlation with relapse for CD13 (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.02–8.19) and with CR for CD2 (OR=0.40; 95% CI=0.17–0.94), CD10 (OR=0.37; 95% CI=0.15–0.90), CD15 (OR=0.42; 95% CI=0.19–0.94), and CD36 (OR=0.48; 95% CI=0.24–0.95) (Table 5).
Table 5.
Multivariate logistic regression results – predictors of relapse for total AML
| Antigen markers/variables | Total AML sample (n=209) | |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR | 95%CI | |
| Age less than 60 | Referent | Referent |
| Age 60 or older | 2.03 | (0.96, 4.28) ns |
| Good cytogenetics | Referent | Referent |
| Intermediate cytogenetics | 3.40 | (1.52, 7.60)** |
| Poor cytogenetics | 3.01 | (1.15, 7.85)** |
| CD15− | Referent | Referent |
| CD15+ | 0.63 | (0.29, 1.37) ns |
| CD33− | Referent | Referent |
| CD33+ | 0.62 | (0.18, 2.06) ns |
| CD34−/HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+ (Pos) | 6.79 | (3.43, 13.47)** |
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval;
statistically significant at p<0.05;
ns: statistically not significant.
Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, co-expression of CD34 and HLA-DR was the only immunophenotype finding that continued to show prognostic significance. This was true both when APLs were included (OR=6.79; 95% CI=3.43–13.47) and when they were excluded (OR=4.41; 95% CI=2.06–9.44) from the test population. In the former analysis, intermediate (OR=3.40; 95% CI=1.52–7.60) and unfavorable (OR=3.01; 95%CI=1.15–7.85) cytogenetic features were also associated with an increased relapse rate, as was age greater than 60 years old in the latter. In both analyses, however, co-expression of CD34 and HLA-DR was the strongest and independent predictor of relapse (Table 6).
Table 6.
Multivariate logistic regression results – predictors of relapse for AML excluding APL
| Antigen markers/variables | AML excluding APL sample (n=183) | |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR | 95%CI | |
| Age less than 60 | Referent | Referent |
| Age 60 or older | 2.28 | (1.01, 5.15)** |
| Good cytogenetics | Referent | Referent |
| Intermediate cytogenetics | 1.44 | (0.48, 4.34) ns |
| Poor cytogenetics | 1.26 | (0.37, 4.27) ns |
| CD13− | Referent | Referent |
| CD13+ | 2.21 | (0.72, 6.78) ns |
| CD15− | Referent | Referent |
| CD15+ | 0.56 | (0.22, 1.40) ns |
| CD34−/HLA-DR− | Referent | Referent |
| CD34+/HLA-DR+ | 4.41 | (2.06, 9.44)** |
| CD11B+/CD11C+/CD36+/CD14+ (less than 3 of 4) | Referent | Referent |
| CD11B+/CD11C+/CD36+/CD14+ (at least 3 of 4) | 0.83 | (0.35, 1.96) ns |
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval;
statistically significant at p<0.05;
ns: statistically not significant.
Discussion
Previous studies have addressed whether immunophenotype has predictive value with respect to clinical outcomes in AML, often achieving statistical significance for specific antigen markers or combinations thereof. However, the findings of these various investigations are conflicting, and no consensus has emerged regarding which, if any, markers hold prognostic significance [17–49]. We retrospectively studied FCI, in conjunction with age and cytogenetic features, as a means of predicting disease relapse in AML patients over approximately 6 years at a single institution. In order to allow comparison with these other studies, some of which excluded APL cases from their test populations, we performed all statistical analyses twice: once including all AML cases (n=209) and the other including only those cases failing to demonstrate t(15;17) (n=183).
Our findings support previous reports ascribing poor prognosis to AML cases with myeloblasts expressing the hematopoietic progenitor cell markers CD34 and HLA-DR [19; 39, 45–49]. Although we identified several antigenic markers associated with prognostic outcomes on initial bivariate analysis, multivariate analysis confirmed only independent CD34 and HLA-DR expression, along with CD34/HLA-DR co-expression, as having significant predictive value in the all inclusive population. While inclusion of cases demonstrating the prognostically favorable t(15;17), almost by definition negative for CD34 and HLA-DR, clearly confounds these results, these markers remained significantly associated with increased relapse risk even when APL cases were excluded from the test population.
In fact, excluding the t(15;17) cases yielded additional significant associations on simple multivariate analysis with CD2, CD10, CD15, and CD36 correlating with CR and CD13 correlating with relapse. While these additional findings admittedly simply add to the complicated landscape of potentially prognostic markers already described, application of the more stringent multivariate logistic regression model of analysis again revealed only CD34 and HLA-DR co-expression to be significant among the immunophenotypic markers. In fact, co-expression of these markers proved more predictive of poor outcome than advanced age and absence of favorable cytogenetic features.
Given the reportedly favorable prognosis ascribed to cases with a panmyeloid phenotype [22], we investigated and failed to demonstrate any prognostic implications for cases co-expressing the myeloid-exclusive markers present in our panel–namely CD13, CD33, and CD117. Unfortunately, we were unable to implement the more stringent panmyeloid criteria established by Legrand et al (requiring co-expression of CD13, CD33, CDw65, CD117, and MPO) due to insufficient numbers of cases evaluated for MPO and exclusion of CDw65 from routine testing at our institution. Similarly, the reported poor prognosis associated with CD56 expression in AML could not be adequately assessed because of limited numbers of these cases present in our sample population.
In conclusion, the results of this study support the findings of previous investigations in ascribing poor prognostic implications to AML cases with myeloblasts co-expressing the hematopoietic progenitor markers CD34 and HLA-DR. Since almost all AML cases undergo immunophenotyping and given the relative speed and availability of testing, any significant prognostic information to be gleaned from flow cytometric analysis, in conjunction with cytogenetic and other clinical findings, may be helpful in influencing treatment strategies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Laura Zapata for assistance with statistical analysis.
References
- 1.Belov L, de la Vega O, dos Remedios CG, Mulligan SP, Christopherson RI. Immunophenotyping of leukemias using a cluster of differentiation antibody microarray. Cancer Res. 2001;61:4483–4489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bradstock K, Matthews J, Benson E, Page F, Bishop J. Prognostic value of immunophenotyping in acute myeloid leukemia. Australian Leukaemia Study Group. Blood. 1994;84:1220–1225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Elghetany MT, Sullivan AK, Kurec AS, MacCallum JM, Bloomfield CD, Sobol RE, Davey FR. The use of monoclonal antibodies against primary myeloid granules in normal and leukemic cells. Am J Clin Pathol. 1992;98:430–436. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/98.4.430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Haferlach T, Bacher U, Kern W, Schnittger S, Haferlach C. Diagnostic pathways in acute leukemias: a proposal for a multimodal approach. Ann Hematol. 2007;86:311–327. doi: 10.1007/s00277-007-0253-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Harada N, Okamura S, Kubota A, Shimoda K, Ikematsu W, Kondo S, Harada M, Niho Y. Analysis of acute myeloid leukemia cells by flow cytometry, introducing a new light-scattering classification. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1994;120:553–557. doi: 10.1007/BF01221034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kaleem Z, Crawford E, Pathan MH, Jasper L, Covinsky MA, Johnson LR, White G. Flow cytometric analysis of acute leukemias. Diagnostic utility and critical analysis of data. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:42–48. doi: 10.5858/2003-127-42-FCAOA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kawada H, Ichikawa Y, Watanabe S, Nagao T, Arimori S. Flow cytometric analysis of cell-surface antigen expressions on acute myeloid leukemia cell populations according to their cell-size. Leuk Res. 1994;18:29–35. doi: 10.1016/0145-2126(94)90006-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Khalidi HS, Medeiros LJ, Chang KL, Brynes RK, Slovak ML, Arber DA. The immunophenotype of adult acute myeloid leukemia: high frequency of lymphoid antigen expression and comparison of immunophenotype, French-American-British classification, and karyotypic abnormalities. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:211–220. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/109.2.211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kotylo PK, Seo IS, Smith FO, Heerema NA, Fineberg NS, Miller K, Greene ME, Chou P, Orazi A. Flow cytometric immunophenotypic characterization of pediatric and adult minimally differentiated acute myeloid leukemia (AML-M0) Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;113:193–200. doi: 10.1309/2FYJ-00BE-R8N0-HMPQ. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lacombe F, Durrieu F, Briais A, Dumain P, Belloc F, Bascans E, Reiffers J, Boisseau MR, Bernard P. Flow cytometry CD45 gating for immunophenotyping of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1997;11:1878–1886. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2400847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Paredes-Aguilera R, Romero-Guzman L, Lopez-Santiago N, Burbano-Ceron L, Camacho-Del Monte O, Nieto-Martinez S. Flow cytometric analysis of cell-surface and intracellular antigens in the diagnosis of acute leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2001;68:69–74. doi: 10.1002/ajh.1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ratei R, Karawajew L, Lacombe F, Jagoda K, Del Poeta G, Kraan J, De Santiago M, Kappelmayer J, Bjorklund E, Ludwig WD, Gratama JW, Orfao A. European Working Group of Clinical Cell A: Discriminant function analysis as decision support system for the diagnosis of acute leukemia with a minimal four color screening panel and multiparameter flow cytometry immunophenotyping. Leukemia. 2007;21:1204–1211. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Schwonzen M, Diehl V, Dellanna M, Staib P. Immunophenotyping of surface antigens in acute myeloid leukemia by flow cytometry after red blood cell lysis. Leuk Res. 2007;31:113–116. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2006.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Weir EG, Borowitz MJ. Flow cytometry in the diagnosis of acute leukemia. Semin Hematol. 2001;38:124–138. doi: 10.1016/s0037-1963(01)90046-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.de Nully Brown P JJ, Pedersen-Bjergaard J, Victor MA, Geisler CH. The prognostic significance of chromosomal analysis and immunophenotyping in 117 patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 1997;21:985–995. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2126(97)00079-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Girimwade DWH, Oliver F, Wheatley K, Harrison C, Harrison G, Rees J, Hann I, Stevens R, Burnett A, Goldstone A. The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1,612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial. The Medical Research Council Adult and Children's Leukaemia Working Parties. Blood. 1998;92:2322–2333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Del Poeta G, Stasi R, Venditti A, Suppo G, Aronica G, Bruno A, Masi M, Tabilio A, Papa G. Prognostic value of cell marker analysis in de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1994;8:388–394. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Rowe JL. Treatment and prognostic factors in acute myeloid leukemia. Baillieres Clin Haematol. 1996;9:87–105. doi: 10.1016/s0950-3536(96)80038-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chang HSF, Yi QL, Patterson B, Brien B, Minden MD. Prognostic relevance of immuno-phenotyping in 379 patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2004;28:43–48. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2126(03)00180-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Creutzig U, Harbott J, Sperling C, Ritter J, Zimmermann M, Loffler H, Riehm H, Schellong G, Ludwig WD. Clinical significance of surface antigen expression in children with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 1995;86:3097–3108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kern W, Voskova D, Schoch C, Schnittger S, Hiddemann W, Haferlach T. Prognostic impact of early response to induction therapy as assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2004;89:528–540. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Legrand O PJ, Baudard M, Cordier A, Lautier R, Simonin G, Zittoun R, Casadevall N, Marie jP. The immunophenotype of 177 adults with acute myeloid leukemia: proposal of a prognostic score. Blood. 2000;96:870–877. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Perea G, Domingo A, Villamor N, Palacios C, Junca J, Torres P, Llorente A, Fernandez C, Tormo M, Queipo de Llano MP, Bargay J, Gallart M, Florensa L, Vivancos P, Marti JM, Font L, Berlanga J, Esteve J, Bueno J, Ribera JM, Brunet S, Sierra J, Nomdedeu JF, GroupSpain C. Adverse prognostic impact of CD36 and CD2 expression in adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia patients. Leuk Res. 2005;29:1109–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2005.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Pereira FG, Metze K, Costa FP, Lima CSP, Lorand-Metze I. Phenotypic quantitative features of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Neoplasma. 2006;53:155–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tucker J, Dorey E, Gregory WM, Simpson AP, Amess JA, Lister TA, Horton MA. Immunophenotype of blast cells in acute myeloid leukemia may be a useful predictive factor for outcome. Hematol Oncol. 1990;8:47–58. doi: 10.1002/hon.2900080107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wetzler M, McElwain BK, Stewart CC, Blumenson L, Mortazavi A, Ford LA, Slack JL, Barcos M, Ferrone S, Baer MR. HLA-DR antigen-negative acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2003;17:707–715. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2402865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Zangrando A, Luchini A, Buldini B, Rondelli R, Pession A, Bicciato S, te Kronnie G, Basso G. Immunophenotype signature as a tool to define prognostic subgroups in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2006;20:888–891. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ball ED, Davis RB, Griffin JD, Mayer RJ, Davey FR, Arthur DC, Wurster-Hill D, Noll W, Elghetany MT, Allen SL, et al. Prognostic value of lymphocyte surface markers in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 1991;77:2242–2250. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bacher U, Kern W, Schoch C, Schnittger S, Hiddemann W, Haferlach T. Evaluation of complete disease remission in acute myeloid leukemia: a prospective study based on cytomorphology, interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization, and immunophenotyping during follow-up in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2006;106:839–847. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Baer MR, Stewart CC, Lawrence D, Arthur DC, Byrd JC, Davey FR, Schiffer CA, Bloomfield CD. Expression of the neural cell adhesion molecule CD56 is associated with short remission duration and survival in acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22) Blood. 1997;90:1643–1648. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bahia DM, Yamamoto M, Chauffaille MdL, Kimura EY, Bordin JO, Filgueiras MA, Kerbauy J. Aberrant phenotypes in acute myeloid leukemia: a high frequency and its clinical significance. Haematologica. 2001;86:801–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Campos L, Guyotat D, Archimbaud E, Devaux Y, Treille D, Larese A, Maupas J, Gentilhomme O, Ehrsam A, Fiere D. Surface marker expression in adult acute myeloid leukaemia: correlations with initial characteristics, morphology and response to therapy. Br J Haematol. 1989;72:161–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1989.tb07677.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ciolli S, Leoni F, Caporale R, Pascarella A, Salti F, Rossi-Ferrini P. CD34 expression fails to predict the outcome in adult acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 1993;78:151–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Jilani I, Estey E, Huh Y, Joe Y, Manshouri T, Yared M, Giles F, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, Thomas D, Keating M, Freireich E, Albitar M. Differences in CD33 intensity between various myeloid neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:560–566. doi: 10.1309/1WMW-CMXX-4WN4-T55U. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lee E, Yang J, Leavitt RD, Testa JR, Civin CI, Forrest A, Schiffer CA. The significance of CD34 and TdT determinations in patients with untreated de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1992;6:1203–1209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Legras S, Gunthert U, Stauder R, Curt F, Oliferenko S, Kluin-Nelemans HC, Marie JP, Proctor S, Jasmin C, Smadja-Joffe F. A strong expression of CD44-6v correlates with shorter survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 1998;91:3401–3413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Schwarzinger I, Valent P, Koller U, Marosi C, Schneider B, Haas O, Knapp W, Lechner K, Bettelheim P. Prognostic significance of surface marker expression on blasts of patients with de novo acute myeloblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:423–430. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.3.423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Del Poeta G, Stasi R, Venditti A, Cox C, Aronica G, Masi M, Bruno A, Simone MD, Buccisano F, Papa G. CD7 expression in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 1995;17:111–119. doi: 10.3109/10428199509051710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Graf M, Reif S, Kroll T, Hecht K, Nuessler V, Schmetzer H. Expression of MAC-1 (CD11b) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Am J Hematol. 2006;81:227–235. doi: 10.1002/ajh.20526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kita K, Miwa H, Nakase K, Kawakami K, Kobayashi T, Shirakawa S, Tanaka I, Ohta C, Tsutani H, Oguma S, et al. Clinical importance of CD7 expression in acute myelocytic leukemia. the Japan Cooperative Group of Leukemia/Lymphoma. Blood. 1993;81:2399–2405. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Raspadori D, Damiani D, Michieli M, Stocchi R, Gentili S, Gozzetti A, Masolini P, Michelutti A, Geromin A, Fanin R, Lauria F. CD56 and PGP expression in acute myeloid leukemia: impact on clinical outcome. Haematologica. 2002;87:1135–1140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Saxena A, Sheridan DP, Card RT, McPeek AM, Mewdell CC, Skinnider LF. Biologic and clinical significance of CD7 expression in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 1998;58:278–284. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8652(199808)58:4<278::aid-ajh5>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Seymour JF, Pierce SA, Kantarjian HM, Keating MJ, Estey EH. Investigation of karyotypic, morphologic and clinical features in patients with acute myeloid leukemia blast cells expressing the neural cell adhesion molecule (CD56) Leukemia. 1994;8:823–826. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Venditti A, Del Poeta G, Buccisano F, Tamburini A, Cox-Froncillo MC, Aronica G, Bruno A, Del Moro B, Epiceno AM, Battaglia A, Forte L, Postorino M, Cordero V, Santinelli S, Amadori S. Prognostic relevance of the expression of Tdt and CD7 in 335 cases of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1998;12:1056–1063. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Guerci A, Merlin JL, Missoum N, Feldmann L, Marchal S, Witz F, Rose C, Guerci O. Predictive value for treatment outcome in acute myeloid leukemia of cellular daunorubicin accumulation and P-glycoprotein expression simultaneously determined by flow cytometry. Blood. 1995;85:2147–2153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Junghanss C, Waak M, Knopp A, Kleine HD, Kundt G, Leithauser M, Hilgendorf I, Wolff D, Casper J, Freund M. Multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in acute myeloid leukemia: relevance of cytogenetic abnormalities and CD34 expression. Neoplasma. 2005;52:402–410. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lanza F, Rigolin GM, Moretti S, Latorraca A, Castoldi G. Prognostic value of immunophenotypic characteristics of blast cells in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 1994;13(Suppl 1):81–85. doi: 10.3109/10428199409052681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Raspadori D, Lauria F, Ventura MA, Rondelli D, Visani G, de Vivo A, Tura S. Incidence and prognostic relevance of CD34 expression in acute myeloblastic leukemia: analysis of 141 cases. Leuk Res. 1997;21:603–607. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2126(97)00015-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Solary E, Casasnovas RO, Campos L, Bene MC, Faure G, Maingon P, Falkenrodt A, Lenormand B, Genetet N. Surface markers in adult acute myeloblastic leukemia: correlation of CD19+, CD34+ and CD14+/DR- phenotypes with short survival. Groupe d'Teude Immunologique des Leucemies (GEIL) Leukemia. 1992;2:393–399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]