Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2026
Database-guided Flow-cytometry for Evaluation of Bone Marrow Myeloid Cell Maturation
Published on: November 3, 2018
Diagnostic utility of bilateral bone marrow examination: significance of morphologic and ancillary technique study in
Jun Wang1, Lawrence M Weiss, Karen L Chang
1Division of Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California 91010, USA.
Background:
To retrospectively evaluate the significance of morphologic examination and ancillary studies performed on bilateral bone marrow biopsy specimens, 1864 bone marrow samples were studied.
Methods:
Bilateral bone marrow biopsy specimens included 883 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); 381 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by carcinoma (CA); 362 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by Hodgkin disease (HD); 94 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by sarcoma (SA); 56 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by multiple myeloma (MM); 53 specimens that were evaluated for involvement by acute and chronic leukemia, myelodysplasia, and/or myeloproliferative disorders (LEUK); and 35 specimens that were evaluated for other reasons.
Results:
Of all 1864 specimens, 410 samples (22.0%) were positive for disease, including 77% of MM samples, 58% of LEUK samples, 29.6% of NHL samples, 14% of SA samples, 9.9% of HD samples, and 6.8% of CA samples. A discrepancy between the left and right sides was identified in 48 specimens (11.7% of positive samples). The discrepancy rate was 39% for HD samples, 29% for SA samples, 23% for CA samples, and 9.2% for NHL samples. No morphologic discrepancies between bilateral samples were found in MM samples or LEUK samples. Bilateral flow cytometric studies (n = 113 samples) were positive in 11 samples (9.7%; all morphologically positive), with two discrepancies detected between bilateral samples. Bilateral cytogenetic studies (n = 74 samples) were positive in 5 samples (7%), and there were no discrepancies. Bilateral molecular studies (n = 16 samples) were positive in 7 samples (44%), and there were 3 discrepancies.
Conclusions:
Bilateral morphologic evaluation is useful in the evaluation of patients with NHL, HD, CA, and SA and is not indicated for patients with acute or chronic leukemia, myelodysplasia, MM, and other diseases. Bilateral flow cytometric or cytogenetic studies of bone marrow did not provide additional information in this population to justify bilateral samples. The role of bilateral molecular analysis needs to be defined further, but pooled samples for molecular studies may be adequate.
