| SUSAN LECLAIR |
Mike - reactive lymphocytes are actively responding
to an antigen rather than being damaged by something so inflamed isn't
exactly the correct description although my picky-ness on this is more
the result of years of arguing with physicians et al about the functions
of lymphs than any real difference in terms.
The original description of these cells was "atypical" meaning having a
disease (or malignancy) because the person who first saw them thought
the cells were the cause of the disease he was investigating. 40 years
later, it was determined that the cells were the body's defense against
the disease and the name "reactive" was invented to mirror that belief.
Sadly there are lots of people in the laboratory and in medicine who
still call them atypical and still believe that the only time you see
them is in infectious mononucleosis.
No, it is not correct that any number over the reference range is
malignant. You want a large number of cells to defend you against
antigenic attack. For example, it is possible to have a 100x10^9/L white
cell count with 90% lymphocytes in a child with whooping cough. That is
not malignant - it is "healthy" in the sense that this child's immune
system is functioning correctly. What is malignant is a loss of control
- these cells should respond, increase in number and in variety, and
then, after successful elimination of the antigen, return to the
previously seen lower number of cells.
Changes in morphology can be definitely seen in response to antigens but
can also be seen in progression of lots of different lymphoproliferative
diseases. I would ask if that laboratory differentiates between reactive
cells and abnormal or atypical lymphocytes (as in malignant). I would
also ask how the physician interprets these changes.
|