METHODS: Using a panel of antibodies to CD10, Bcl-6, MUM1 and CD138, consecutive cases of primary UAT DLBCL were stratified into subgroups of germinal centre B-cell-like (GCB) and non-GCB, phenotype profile patterns A, B and C, as proposed by Hans et al. and Chang et al., respectively. EBER in situ hybridisation technique was applied for the detection of EBV in the tumours.
RESULTS: In this series of 32 cases of UAT DLBCL, 34% (11/32) were GCB, and 66% (21/32) were non-GCB types; 59% (19/32) had combined patterns A and B, and 41% (13/32) had pattern C. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in the occurrence of these prognostic subgroups in the UAT when compared with series of de novo DLBCL from all sites. There was also no site difference in phenotype protein expressions, with the exception of MUM1. EBER in situ hybridisation stain demonstrated only one EBV infected case.
CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic subgroup distribution of UAT DLBCL is similar to de novo DLBCL from all sites, and EBV association is very infrequent.
METHODS: ALK gene rearrangement was detected by immunostaining of ALK protein and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) targeting at the 2p23 region.
RESULTS: The expression of ALK protein was detected in 24/34 (71%) of the cases, and it was significantly higher in childhood cases (100%) when compared to adult cases (47%). The analyses by FISH were consistent with the results from immunostaining of ALK protein, but the analyses were only successful in 15/34 (44%) cases. FISH analyses detected extra copies of ALK gene in three cases, including one case that expressed ALK protein and showed 2p23 rearrangement.
CONCLUSIONS: The current series revealed a high frequency of ALK gene rearrangement, especially in the children. Immunostaining of ALK protein is a reliable indication of ALK gene rearrangement, and is superior to FISH. However, FISH analysis is useful in detecting other genetic aberrations that are not related to ALK gene rearrangement.
METHODS: EMA detection was performed by flow cytometry in monocytes and monoblasts. EMA expression was compared with other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage (CD11c, CD14 and intracellular CD68). Samples of purified monocytes were obtained from 20 healthy volunteers. Twenty-two cases of monocytic AML (M4 and M5) were studied and controls were selected from 20 cases of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and 18 cases of non-monocytic AML (M0, M1, M2, M3, and M7).
RESULTS: EMA was shown to be expressed strongly on the surface of all purified monocytes. EMA expression was observed on blast cells in 18/22 (81.8%) cases of AML M4 and M5, but not in that of non-monocytic AML or ALL. In this study EMA monoclonal antibody has demonstrated a strong association (P<0.001) with all the other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage in acute leukaemia subtypes. EMA had also shown 100% specificity and 81.8% sensitivity in the diagnosis of AML M4 and M5.
CONCLUSIONS: The monoclonal antibody EMA (clone E29) is a useful marker in the classification of acute myeloid leukaemia and can be used as a supplementary analysis for the diagnosis of acute leukemia with monocytic involvement.
METHODS: Three segments of the whole UC, each 3 cm in length, were identified anatomically as the maternal, middle and fetal segments. The hWJMSCs from the different segments were analyzed via trypan blue exclusion assay to determine the growth kinetics and cell viability, flow cytometry for immunophenotyping and immunofluorescence and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for expression of stromal cell transcriptional factors. Furthermore, the trilineage differentiation potential (osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic) of these cells was also assessed.
RESULTS: hWJMSCs isolated from the maternal and fetal segments displayed greater viability and possessed a significantly higher proliferation rate compared with cells from the middle segment. Immunophenotyping revealed that hWJMSCs derived from all three segments expressed the MSC markers CD105, CD73, CD90, CD44, CD13 and CD29, as well as HLA-ABC and HLA-DR, but were negative for hematopoietic markers CD14, CD34 and CD45. Analysis of the embryonic markers showed that all three segments expressed Nanog and Oct 3/4, but only the maternal and fetal segments expressed SSEA 4 and TRA-160. Cells from all three segments were able to differentiate into chondrogenic, osteogenic and adipogenic lineages with the middle segments showing much lower differentiation potential compared with the other two segments.
CONCLUSIONS: hWJMSCs derived from the maternal and fetal segments of the UC are a good source of MSCs compared with cells from the middle segment because of their higher proliferation rate and viability. Fetal and maternal segments are the preferred cell source for bone regeneration.