De novo myeloid sarcoma mostly presented isolated. Lesions were often localized at skin and lymph nodes. Genetic aberrations frequently involved core-binding factor rearrangements in de novo cases and a complex karyotype in secondary cases.

No abstract

Background Islet cell-specific autoantibodies are useful to classify diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of commercially available ELISAs to detect autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase 65-kDa isoform (GADA), tyrosine phosphatase-related islet antigen 2 (IA-2A), zinc transporter protein 8 (ZnT8A), and insulin (IAA). The performance of ELISA was compared to the performance of RIA. Methods We retrospectively identified 76 newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus patients (median age 27 years, female/male: 0.65) and 131 disease controls (median age 45 years, female/male: 0.60). The ELISAs were from Medipan. RIAs were in-house methods from the Belgian Diabetes Registry or from Medipan or DIASource. Results Sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were, respectively, 97% and 97% for GADA, 61% and 99% for IA-2A, 1% and 96% for IAA, and 70% and 98% for ZnT8A. The likelihood ratio for type 1 diabetes increased with increasing antibody levels for GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A measured by ELISA. The positive predictive value of double positivity for either GADA, IA-2A, or ZnT8A was 100%. Conclusions The ELISAs to detect GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A have good performance characteristics. Combining autoantibody assays and taking into account antibody levels improves the interpretation of autoantibody testing.

Hemoglobin S results obtained with TOSOH G8 in variant HbA1c mode are clinically acceptable to monitor urgent RCE. The observed underestimation will not alter clinical decision-making.

In primary care, our local pediatricians still perform white blood cell (WBC) count obtained by manual microscopy. The goal of this study was to compare microscopic WBC count and HemoCue WBC System point-of-care device in reliability and clinical use. We found a slope of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14) and an intercept of 0.12 (95% CI, −2.21 to 1.61) for the comparison of ADVIA 2120i and HemoCue WBC system (n = 14), a slope of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.26) and an intercept of −1.08 (95% CI, −2.46 to 0.07) for the comparison of ADVIA 2120i and microscopic WBC count (n = 52), and a slope of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14) and an intercept of −0.50 (95% CI, −1.51 to 0.34) for the comparison of microscopic WBC count and HemoCue system (n = 40). We can conclude that microscopic WBC count is still a reliable alternative for obtaining the WBC count in primary care practices.