Figure 1. The monocytoid-appearance of the blasts I more evident in this view of the peripheral smear. The two central cells are atypical monocytes; the blast cell on the right can not be assigned a lineage based on morphology; the remaining two cells are promonocytes.
Figure 2. Two blasts are seen in this view. The one on the left contains a single Auer rod. Granules, however, are not present in the cytoplasm of either blast.
Figure 3. The marrow aspirate is markedly cellular. Even at this magnification, one can appreciate an increased blast population and an apparent hyperplasia of eosinophils and eosinophilic precursors. Few erythroid precursors are noted.
Figure 4. At higher magnification, the marked increase in blasts , some with round nuclei and others with irregular, convoluted nuclei, can be seen. Dysplastic eosinophilic precursors are prominent.
Figure 5. The dysplastic eosinophilic precursors are better seen in this view. Some of these cells contain both eosinophilc and basophilic granules. Other large blast-like cells multiple eosinophilic inclusions.
Figure 6. Both myeloid and monocytoid blasts are seen in this image in addition to the aberrant eosinophilic precursors. The cytogenetic and FISH analyses revealed an inv chromosome 16 consistent with AML M4e and a trisomy 22.
Figure 8. At higher magnification of the previous image, variable intensity of staining of individual myeloid and monocytoid blasts with dual esterase can be appreciated.
Figure 10. The extensive eosinophilic proliferation is more apparent in this view. Rare erythroid precursors are present. The variable nuclear contours of the blasts are evident.
Figure 11. A higher magnification of the previous image is shown. Note the marked variability in blast morphology and the extensive proliferation of eosinophils and eosinophilic precursors.