These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic challenge in mixed phenotype acute leukemia with T/megakaryocyte or T/myeloid lineages accompanied by t(3;3).
    Author: Jia Y, Lin D, Wang Z, Li C, Wang H, Wang J, Mi Y.
    Journal: Diagn Pathol; 2022 Oct 05; 17(1):74. PubMed ID: 36199105.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) with T/megakaryocyte or T/myeloid lineages accompanied by t(3;3) is always a challenge. Therefore, multiple experimental methods are usually required to avoid misdiagnosis. In this report, we presented a rare case of MPAL with T/myeloid lineages accompanied by t(3;3) and discussed the experience of differential diagnosis and our appreciation of the MPAL with T/megakaryocyte and T/myeloid lineages accompanied by t(3;3). CASE PRESENTATION: A 31-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital due to recurrent fever for 20 days. Two distinct blast populations were detected by flow cytometry analysis: one population fulfills the immunophenotypic criteria for T-lymphoblastic leukemia, while the other population is highly suggestive of megakaryoblasts. These immunophenotypic features support the diagnosis of MPAL (T/megakaryocyte), which is rarely reported​. Interestingly, a complex karyotype was detected afterward by cytogenetics with t(3;3)(q21;q26.2), indicating a diagnosis of AML with t(3;3), a subset of which is also characterized by megakaryocytic markers such as CD41 and CD61. It seems that the second blast population detected by flow cytometry could not be classified into either diagnosis based on the morphology, immunophenotyping, and even cytogenetic findings, posing a real diagnostic problem because of the lack of clear-cut cytogenetic morphological defined criteria to distinguish between acute megakaryocytic leukemia and AML with t(3;3). Combining all of the examination data, this case was ultimately diagnosed as MPAL (T + My)-NOS with t(3;3) through differential diagnosis. Before the cytogenetic results were available, the patient received an acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) regimen for MPAL treatment, but the effect was unsatisfactory. After the diagnosis was clear, she received an AML-like regimen with azacitidine for 7 days and venetoclax for 14 days, and achieved complete morphological remission. CONCLUSION: MPAL with either T/megakaryocyte or T/myeloid lineages accompanied by t(3;3) is rare, and it is difficult to make a clear diagnosis. Thus, comprehensive examinations, including bone marrow cell morphology, flow cytometry analysis, cytogenetics, and molecular analysis are recommended to avoid misdiagnosis. AML-like regimen including azacitidine and venetoclax may be effective for treating MPAL (T + My)-NOS with t(3;3).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]