Essential Thrombocythemia in Patients with Platelet Counts below 600×10⁹/L: Applicability of the 2008 World Health Organization Diagnostic Criteria Proposal

WHO criteria defines platelet counts above 600×10⁹/L as the threshold for essential thrombocythemia (ET) diagnosis. It has been argued that such threshold excludes a number of patients with ET with platelet counts below 600×10⁹/L. Recently, a proposal for revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria for ET has been published, which includes the combination of histological bone marrow study and testing of JAK2 mutation.

Design and methods: Retrospective analysis of 92 patients with ET diagnosis between 1989 and February 2008, isolating the subgroup of patients with platelet counts below 600×109/L. The aim of this study was to analyze the applicability of the 2008 WHO criteria in this subgroup.

Results: Of the 92 patients, 30 patients did not fulfill the WHO criteria due to platelet counts <600×10⁹/L and in some cases also due to the coexistence of alternative causes of thrombocytosis. There were no significant differences between the entire group and the borderline platelet count subgroup in demographics, clinical and laboratory parameters (Table 1). The median age of the borderline platelet count group was 51 years (range 19–83 years) and 20 were female (70%). At diagnosis their median platelet count was 527×10⁹/L (range 424–597). Fifteen patients (50%) showed the presence of JAK2 mutation. Remarkably, 74% of the patients presented as high-intermediate risk at diagnosis. From the 30 patients who did not fulfill the WHO criteria due to low platelet counts, 26 (87%) satisfied the modified criteria allowing ET diagnosis. Among them, 1 patient showed an alternative cause of thrombocytosis, however JAK2 mutation was positive confirming the primary cause of the disorder. Four patients remained not fulfilling the new criteria due to insufficient bone marrow sample or incompatible histology, however one of these patients showed JAK2 mutation confirming ET. The median follow-up was 2.54 years (range 0.07–18.7). During this period, none of the 30 patients had a spontaneous decrease of platelet count to within the normal range. Furthermore, transformation from ET to IMF was observed in 2 cases supporting the diagnosis of ET. During follow-up, 27 out of 30 patients were treated with antiaggregating drugs, 3 with antithrombotic therapy, and 20 with myelosuppressive therapy. The 11 patients who did not receive myelosuppressive therapy remained with platelet counts above 400×10⁹/L.

Conclusions: In our study, patients with platelet counts below 600×10⁹/L did not show significant differences compared with the whole ET patients group. This subgroup can be diagnosed as having ET following the 2008 WHO criteria. The detection of JAK2 mutation in this setting enables the accurate diagnosis not only in cases with borderline thrombocytosis but more importantly in cases with alternative potential causes and also in cases where bone marrow sample is not available or incompatible. This observation raises de question of the role of bone marrow histology as a subjective diagnostic tool in ET diagnosis as opposed to JAK2 mutation detection. In JAK2 negative patients, subsequent follow-up of untreated patients confirmed the diagnosis since platelet counts remained high. The modified criteria facilitates the clinician to make an early diagnosis of ET in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, a high proportion of these patients may be at risk of vascular complications, who may beneficiate from being correctly treated.

TABLE 1