MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095036810 · doi:10.1002/jha2.125

T‐lymphoblastic transformation of chronic myeloid leukemia

2020· article· en· W3095036810 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam al Bakri, Audi Setiadi

Bibliographic record

VenueeJHaem · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPathologyMedicineMyeloidBone marrowComplete blood countImmunologyGastroenterologyMolecular biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 85-year-old presented with abdominal pain and WBC count of 245.9 × 109/L with 26.9% blasts (66.39 × 109/L): neutrophils 110.66 × 109/L, eosinophils 12.30 × 109/L, basophils 0.0 × 109/L, metamyelocytes 7.38 × 109/L, myelocytes 17.22 × 109/L, lymphocytes 7.38 × 109/L, monocytes 24.59 × 109/L, hemoglobin 97 g/L, and platelets 107 × 109/L. Previous complete blood counts 3 years ago were normal. The blood film showed marked neutrophilia with leukoerythroblastosis, large platelets, and frequent medium-sized blasts with irregular nuclei (panel A, Wright-Giemsa stain; original magnification X200 and panel B; original magnification X500). Computed tomography abdomen showed splenomegaly. The patient deteriorated very rapidly and unfortunately passed away before a bone marrow biopsy was obtained. Apart from hydroxyurea, no further treatment was instituted. Flow cytometry of the blood specimen was performed 2 days post-hydroxyurea, since the pretreatment sample was too old upon receipt at our institution. The flow cytometry result showed two blast populations. The first population (6%) is positive for cCD3, CD5, CD7, CD4, partial CD2, partial CD117, and negative for CD34 and other myeloid/B-cell antigens (panel C; green population), consistent with T lymphoblasts. There is also a smaller population of blasts (2%) showing myeloid phenotype (panel C; red population), which is favored to be normal left shifted myeloblasts. Cytogenetic analysis demonstrated a complex karyotype with BCR/ABL1 rearrangement in all 10 metaphases examined:: 46,XY,del(8)(q12q21.3),add(9)(q34),del(11)(q23q24), der(14)(14pter → 14q32::?::22q11.2 > 22qter), der(22)t(9;22)(q34;q11.2)[10]. Fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed BCR/ABL1 fusion in 132/200 nuclei. Given the proportion of cells positive for BCR/ABL1 fusion, myeloid predominance, and smaller fraction of T lymphoblasts, diagnosis of T-lymphoblastic transformation in the background of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is favored rather than de novo T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) or mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22). The latter is much less common and does not usually present with myeloid hyperplasia and left shift, as seen in this case. Lymphoblastic transformation comprises 20-30% of CML blast phase, the majority being B-cell lineage. T-lymphoblastic transformation of CML is very rare with only a few reported cases worldwide and confers a very poor prognosis.1 Most cases have a prior history of CML and t(9;22) can be the sole cytogenetic abnormality or as a part of a complex karyotype.1 This case is unique since the patient presents with circulating T-lymphoblasts without a previous history of CML, which poses diagnostic dilemma between de novo T-ALL, mixed phenotype acute leukemia, or T-lymphoblastic phase of CML. The diagnosis in this case was even more challenging because patient deteriorated rapidly with no bone marrow biopsy obtained. However, the combination and careful assessment of blood film morphology, flow cytometry, and FISH analysis can aid with the diagnosis of T-lymphoblastic transformation of CML. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeJHaemSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207