Bobée Victor, Ravel-Chapuis Romain, Souissi Maïssa, Boutet Catherine, Bigot Dany, Paquin Cédric, Gruchet Jorel, Barbay Virginie, Camus Vincent, Bera Elsa, Daliphard Sylvie
Department of Biological Hematology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Department of Biology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France.
Int J Lab Hematol. 2025 Aug;47(4):622-631. doi: 10.1111/ijlh.14464. Epub 2025 Apr 1.
Acute leukemias with hyperleukocytosis (> 100 × 10/L) can produce cytoplasmic blast fragments that interfere with platelet counts, notably in impedance-based methods, potentially masking severe thrombocytopenia and increasing hemorrhagic risk. While fluorescent platelet counting (PLT-F) is promoted as platelet-specific, its accuracy in the presence of blast fragments remains uncertain.
This retrospective study analyzed 269 blood samples from 87 patients with hypercellular acute leukemia. Blast fragments were identified on blood smears. Platelet counts by impedance were compared to optical (PLT-O) and fluorescent (PLT-F) methods when available. Flow cytometry (FC) quantification by CD41+/CD61+ staining was performed in selected cases.
Blast fragments were observed in 26% of cases, predominantly in AML-M5 and AML-M1 subtypes. In the absence of blast fragments, PLT-I, PLT-O, and PLT-F showed comparable results. However, in samples with blast fragments, PLT-I frequently overestimated platelet counts compared to PLT-O and PLT-F. PLT-F counts were closer to FC quantification but still overestimated platelet numbers in 6 of 16 samples with FC results, particularly in cases of severe leukocytosis. Notably, PLT-F failed to trigger abnormal scattergram flags in all but one of the discrepant cases. PLT-O provided results comparable to PLT-F in most cases with blast fragments but also demonstrated limitations in select cases.
PLT-O and PLT-F methods both have limitations in hypercellular acute leukemias with blast fragments. FC remains the most reliable approach when blast fragments are present. Routine blood smear evaluations are essential for detecting interferences and ensuring accurate thrombocytopenia assessment in these high-risk patients.
白细胞增多(>100×10⁹/L)的急性白血病可产生细胞质原始细胞碎片,干扰血小板计数,尤其是在基于阻抗的方法中,这可能掩盖严重血小板减少症并增加出血风险。虽然荧光血小板计数(PLT-F)被认为是血小板特异性的,但其在存在原始细胞碎片时的准确性仍不确定。
这项回顾性研究分析了87例高细胞性急性白血病患者的269份血液样本。在血涂片上识别原始细胞碎片。将阻抗法测得的血小板计数与可用的光学法(PLT-O)和荧光法(PLT-F)进行比较。在选定的病例中通过CD41⁺/CD61⁺染色进行流式细胞术(FC)定量分析。
26%的病例中观察到原始细胞碎片,主要见于急性髓系白血病M5和M1亚型。在没有原始细胞碎片的情况下,PLT-I、PLT-O和PLT-F显示出可比的结果。然而,在有原始细胞碎片的样本中,与PLT-O和PLT-F相比,PLT-I经常高估血小板计数。PLT-F计数更接近FC定量,但在16份有FC结果的样本中有6份仍高估了血小板数量,特别是在严重白细胞增多的病例中。值得注意的是,除1例差异病例外,PLT-F在所有差异病例中均未触发异常散点图标记。在大多数有原始细胞碎片的病例中,PLT-O提供的结果与PLT-F相当,但在某些病例中也显示出局限性。
在伴有原始细胞碎片的高细胞性急性白血病中,PLT-O和PLT-F方法均有局限性。当存在原始细胞碎片时,FC仍然是最可靠的方法。常规血涂片评估对于检测干扰并确保这些高危患者准确的血小板减少评估至关重要。