Diagnostic efficacy comparison between CLLflow score and Moreau score for chronic lymphocytic leukemia
10.3760/cma.j.cn114452-20220628-00375
- VernacularTitle:CLLflow和Moreau评分系统对慢性淋巴细胞白血病诊断效能比较
- Author:
Dongxu PEI
1
;
Peng ZHANG
;
Xiaoke DUAN
;
Lixia DING
;
Lijuan LI
;
Xinwei LIU
;
Yongwei LI
Author Information
1. 河南省中医院（河南中医药大学第二附属医院）医学检验中心，郑州 450002
- Keywords:
Leukemia, lymphocytic, chronic, B-cell;
Flow cytometry;
Moreau score;
Diognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2023;46(1):81-86
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the diagnostic efficacy difference and clinical diagnostic value of chronic lymphocytic leukemia flow (CLLflow) score and Moreau score (MS) in the diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).Methods:According to the latest international and national diagnosis criteria for CLL, 133 patients with B-cell chronic lymphoproliferative diseases and uncertain immunophenotypes (B-CLPD), diagnosed by Zhengzhou Jinyu Comprehensive Haematological Pathology Diagnosis Centre from March 2020 to May 2021, were included in this study. Above patients were divided into the CLL group ( n=83) and non-CLL group ( n=50). The expression of clusters of differentiation (CD)5, CD10, CD20, CD19, κ light chain, λ light chain, FMC7, CD23, CD22, surface immunoglobulin M, CD200 and CD79 were detected by flow cytometry, and CLLflow score and MS score were calculated respectively according to the scoring rules. A fourfold table was used to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the two scoring systems, and the Kappa test and McNemar test were used to compare the consistency and superiority of the systems. Results:The rate of negative and positive CLLflow score were 4.8% (4/83) and 95.2% (79/83) in the CLL group and were 80.0% (40/50) and 20.0% (10/50) in the non-CLL group, and respectively (both P<0.001). The MS score (≤2, =3 and≥4) was 1.2% (1/83), 10.8% (9/83) and 88.0% (73/83) in the CLL group and was 86.0% (43/50), 14.0% (7/50) and 0 in the non-CLL group, there were significant statistical difference between the two groups ( P<0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the CLLflow score were 95.2% (79/83), 80.0% (40/50), 88.8% (79/89) and 90.9% (40/44), respectively and those of MS score were 98.8% (82/83), 86.0% (43/50), 92.1% (82/89) and 97.7% (43/44) respectively. The overall coincidence rate, positive and negative coincidence rate between the CLLflow score and MS score were 91.0% (121/133), 93.3% (83/89) and 86.4% (38/44) respectively. Besides, the McNeamr dominance test presented no significant difference ( P>0.05) and high consistency (Kappa=0.796) between the two scoring systems. With MS≤2 and MS≥4, the sensitivity and the specificity of the MS score were 100% (73/73) and 97.7% (43/44) respectively, and for the CLLflow score, the sensitivity and the specificity were 97.3% (71/73) and 86.4% (38/44) in this MS range. With MS = 3, the sensitivity and specificity of the MS score were 100% (9/9) and 0 (0/7), and CLLflow was 88.9% (8/9) and 57.1% (4/7). Conclusions:The diagnostic efficacy is similar and presents high consistency between the CLLflow score and MS score in CLL diagnosis. For CLL patients with MS = 3, the specificity of MS is relatively low, combined assessment with CLLflow score could improve the diagnosis efficacy for CLL in these patients.
