ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate the effectiveness of the course of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in the Laboratory Medicine Faculty of Sun Yat-sen University. Methods:Twenty-four undergraduate students in Batch 2016 of Medical Laboratory Faculty were divided into small groups (4-6 students per group). They learned each case in groups before class. In the first session of each class, the case-based study (CBS) tutor would randomly assign case-related questions to the students. Students were required to present their answers in class. The CBS tutor would guide the students to discuss the case further. In the second session, a lecture associated with the case would be given by a special subject lecturer. After the course, students, tutors and lecturers were given questionnaires and were randomly interviewed to comprehensively understand the course's effectiveness. SPSS 19.0 was used for statistics.Results:Most case discussion tutors agreed that they could guide students to discuss clinical cases well in class and give comments according to students' presentations (93.75%, 15/16). Most of the lecturers agreed that they could well guide students to think about the relationship between laboratory and clinical diagnosis and treatment in class (91.67%, 11/12). Both teachers and students had very positive evaluations of the learning mode, learning content, inspiration to students, and teachers' ability of this course. All the teachers and students agreed that the learning mode of combining CBS with special subject lecture was more helpful for the students to systematically learn medical knowledge compared with a CBS session alone or a lecture alone.Conclusion:The course, Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences, which combines the CBS with the traditional lecture mode, integrates the advantages of the two learning modes. It not only stimulates students' enthusiasm for active learning, deepens clinical knowledge memory, and builds a clinical thinking model, but also enriches the teaching modes of medical laboratory education.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Secondary lymphoblastic leukemia has been rarely reported in patients with multiple myeloma. CASE REPORTS: We report 3 cases of secondary lymphoblastic leukemia in multiple myeloma patients. They shared a similar phenotype of myeloma cells and secondary lymphoblasts. The chemotherapy treatments in the 3 patients were complex due to various factors. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple immune defects caused by exposure to a variety of agents can play an important role in the development of secondary lymphoblastic leukemia. Microscopic morphology and flow cytometry are important means to detect secondary malignancies in multiple myeloma. Further clinical, experimental and genetic studies of secondary malignancies in multiple myeloma will be necessary in the future.
Subject(s)
Multiple Myeloma/diagnosis , Neoplasms, Second Primary/diagnosis , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma/diagnosis , Achondroplasia , Adult , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Bone Marrow/pathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Gene Rearrangement, B-Lymphocyte , Humans , Immunophenotyping , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence , Middle Aged , Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy , Neoplasms, Second Primary/etiology , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma/etiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Several diagnostic criteria for multiple myeloma are used in clinical practice, and it can be difficult to reach a diagnosis when a patient's clinical presentation is consistent with one criterion but not with another. However, no study to date has compared the superiority of the different diagnostic criteria. The aim of this research is to compare the efficacy of five diagnostic criteria for multiple myeloma and to find the reasons for misdiagnosis of atypical multiple myeloma cases. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A total of 227 multiple myeloma cases were retrospectively studied. The clinical data (including plasma cell morphology, flow cytometry, immunofixation electrophoresis, imaging information and clinical manifestations) were scrutinized and the reasons underlying the misdiagnoses analyzed. RESULTS: The Traditional Domestic criteria had the highest misdiagnosis rate due to the high fixed bone marrow plasma cell percentage and serum M-protein thresholds. The WHO criteria and the International Myeloma Working Group 2009 criteria exhibited relatively low misdiagnosis rates due to their lower bone marrow plasma cell percentage thresholds, flexible criteria and detailed end-organ damage descriptions. The 2003 International Myeloma Working Group criteria and the 2011 Chinese Myeloma Working Group criteria exhibited perfect performance, as each focused on monoclonal plasma cell proliferation and not on fixed bone marrow plasma cell percentage and serum M-protein thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The 2003 International Myeloma Working Group criteria and the 2011 Chinese Myeloma Working Group criteria have advantages in diagnosing early or atypical multiple myeloma cases. To avoid misdiagnosing some atypical cases of multiple myeloma, attention should be paid to evidence of monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, and flow cytometry may be a useful tool for discovering monoclonal plasma cell proliferation. Advanced imaging techniques should be used to confirm any suspected or atypical findings on metastatic bone survey.