PCR and Immunophenotyping Samples of Lymph Node and Bone Marrow
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fine needle aspirates (FNAs) of lymph node and bone marrow (BM) aspirates are widely used in clinical cytopathology for diagnosis of lymphoma. Additional methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) can complement present cytological and immunological methods and help to overcome problems raised from the amount and quality of LN and BM samples. Therefore it is advisable to process them within 24 hours of receipt. Today, methods like nested PCR for detection of fusion genes or multiplex PCR for detection of monoclonal rearrangements of the immunoglobulin or T cell receptor genes have proved to be a valuable marker for malignancy in haematological disorders. Although this techniques are simple, they have however a number of limitations: sufficient number of lymphocytes must be obtained, contamination must be avoid, the neoplastic population must comprise 10% or more of the total population and the gene rearrangement of the neoplastic cell clone must be amplifiable by the consensus primers used. Therefore all FNAs and BM aspirates are routinely processed in duplicate to place more weight on the detection and presence rather than absence of a monoclonal band. FCI as a fast, objective and quantitative multiparametric method has become the preferred method for the lineage assignment, detection of clonality and aberrant antigen coexpression, as well as for quantitation of malignant cells based on the determination of various cell differentiation (CD) markers. It can also detect monoclonal B- cell populations that by cytomorphology may be interpreted as reactive. FCI sample preparation must consider the type of specimen submitted and the number of cells available for analysis. FCI usually performed, but not limited, on routine specimens such as peripheral blood (PB) or BM aspirates which should be processed to contain cell suspension at a concentration optimal for monoclonal staining. Paradoxically, cytological specimens such as FNAs of lymph node which are already cell suspensions are rarely used for FCI. A single cell suspension preparation is crucial. Over the years, FCI standardization has lead to improvements in its performing. In attempts to assist with FCI standardization, the United States–Canadian Consensus and The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) guidelines provided recommendations for FCI in hematopathology, but each laboratory is still ultimately responsible for validating its own measuring instrument, the reagents and the procedures. Today, for an objective and useful interpretation of FCI of FNAs of lymph node it is necessary to obtain the ideal number of 10 000 cells in a tube and to avoid selective cells loss during the cell preparation process. Proposed analytical protocols and procedures also must be used to rule out the most common sources of variability and to ensure proper analytical result.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».