Concurrent chronic lymphocytic leukemia and prolymphocytic leukemia derived from two separate B‐cell clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 82-year-old man presented with leukocytosis and splenomegaly. His blood counts showed a white cell count of 134 × 109/l, hemoglobin 96 g/l, and platelet count 86 × 109/l. The blood film showed two distinct populations of lymphocytes, morphologically, 60% typical CLL cells and 40% large prolymphocytes (Image 1). Patient's spleen was palpable 14 cm below the left costal margin. There were mildly enlarged cervical and axillary lymph nodes up to 2 cm but no evidence of localized lymphoma. Blood film shows two populations of CLL and PLL cells. Flow cytometry analysis showed 90% B lymphocytes. Although all the B cells had lambda light chain restriction, they were heterogeneous for CD5 and CD23 expression, including the CD5+/CD23+ B cells typical of CLL phenotype, and the cells lacking CD5 and CD23 consistent with a PLL population. Clonality analysis was performed with use of multiplex PCR (polymerase chain reaction) assays for IgH rearrangement. With this assay, a clonal B-cell population gives rise to PCR product identical in size and independent clones can be distinguished by unique size of the PCR products. The patient's blood sample showed a pattern of two clones of B lymphocytes (Image 2), indicating the two independent clones of CLL and PLL cells. PCR clonality analysis is based on IgH gene rearrangement and two peaks of PCR products indicate two independent clones of B cells. The patient was treated initially with chlorambucil 2 mg daily with a poor response. His white cell count rose quickly to 240 × 109/l in 5 months. He required transfusion for worsening anemia. Further treatment with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide was tried and discontinued due to poor intolerance. This patient presented with a mixed population of CLL and PLL. The genetic relationship between CLL and PLL may be revealed by immunoglobulin isotypes or immunoglobulin gene rearrangements [1]. Similar to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma developing in CLL (Richter syndrome), B-cell PLL may arise from clonal progression of CLL or a second malignancy unrelated to CLL [1-3]. It is likely that this patient had an indolent and undiagnosed CLL, but the duration of CLL before the emerging PLL is unclear. Nonetheless, the finding of clonality analysis indicates PLL derived from an independent clone to that of CLL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".