CD200 in hematological malignancies: just a diagnostic tool or more?

CD200 in hematological malignancies: just a diagnostic tool or more?

Daniela Damiani, Mario Tiribelli

Division of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Medical Area, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, Italy

Correspondence to: Prof. Daniela Damiani. Division of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Department of Medical Area, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy. Email:

Provenance: This is a Guest Editorial commissioned by the Section Editor Baohong Yue (Hematology lab in Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China).

Comment on: Sandes AF, de Lourdes Chauffaille M, Oliveira CR, et al. CD200 has an important role in the differential diagnosis of mature B cell neoplasms by multiparameter flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2014;86:98-105.

Received: 28 July 2017; Accepted: 08 August 2017; Published: 15 September 2017.

doi: 10.21037/jlpm.2017.08.08

Over the past two decades, the increased number of monoclonal antibodies and the constantly expanding availability of fluorescence probes significantly improved the efficiency and the accuracy of flow cytometric analysis, providing relevant information for the diagnosis, classification and follow up of various hematological malignancies. As a diagnostic tool, together with morphology and molecular genetics, flow cytometry has become a gold standard in the identification of acute and chronic leukemias, but is crucial also in the diagnosis of lymphomas and in the unusual “solid” presentation of hematological diseases. Consequently, it has gained a prominent position in the current WHO classification of hematological neoplasms (1). In particular, B peripheral lymphoproliferative diseases are considered the malignant counterpart of mature B cells and distinguished by their relationship with germinal center. So multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) can often easily overcome the bias of an almost overlapping morphology, identifying follicular lymphoma (FL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) by the expression of CD10, CD5 or CD23. More challenging remains the diagnosis of cases that lack the expression of those antigens, or in atypical CD5+ CLL, in which CD23 expression cannot discriminate between CLL and MCL (2). It’s pleonastic to underline that a precise diagnosis has relevant clinical impact, as B chronic lymphoproliferative neoplasm comprises both indolent entities that may deserve a watchful waiting, and more aggressive diseases requiring an intensive approach. In volume 86B [98–105] of Clinical Cytometry, Sandes and colleagues tested the diagnostic utility of CD200 in differential diagnosis of 159 patients with mature B lymphoproliferative diseases (3). They not only added CD200 to a conventional MFC panel, evaluating its dichotomous expression, but also compared the fluorescence intensity in the tested cases, with the aim to create a reference pool of CD200 expression intensity that may further discriminate within the CD200-positive group. They conclude that CD200 identify CLL from MCL, even in case of atypical, CLL and propone a new diagnostic algorithm for the classification of CD5+ mature B neoplasm, including CD200. Moreover, they highlighted the role of CD200 in discriminating diseases of post-germinative origin, such as hairy cell leukemia, splenic marginal zone lymphoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, all expressing CD200 at different intensity. Similar pattern of expression was reported also by other groups, confirming the potential usefulness of adding CD200 into first-step MFC analysis (4-9). In our opinion, analysis should start from a limited number of “backbone” markers, sensitive enough to include the first physician’s hypothesis and the principal alternative diagnoses, reserving a further characterization to a second time, not to be overwhelmed by un-interpretable results and excessive costs. This is particularly true if we want to evaluate antigens’ intensity of expression, that is particularly influenced by hardware, software, fluorochrome choice and combination, instrument settings. The studies mentioned above employed different methods to define CD200 intensity (i.e., relative linear unit scaled 0 to 104; relative linear unit scaled in an arbitrary biexponential scale from 10−2 to 105; bright, dim, or moderate expression as compared to normal peripheral blood or bone marrow B cells; ratio of the mean fluorescence intensities of the tested antigen and its isotypic control; log shift in mean fluorescence intensity compared to isotype control), thus making interlaboratory or longitudinal comparisons difficult, and suggesting the need of multicentric standardization trials.

Beyond diagnosis, in the past years emerged the potential role of CD200 as prognostic factor and as possible target of new engineered drugs. CD200 is a membrane glycoprotein, coded on chromosome 3q12, belonging to the immunoglobulin superfamily. In adults, CD200 is highly expressed in immune “sanctuaries”, such as the central nervous system and the retina, and in resting and activated T cells, B cells and dendritic cells. Binding its specific receptor (CD200R) it is involved in the regulation of immune response and in maintenance of immune homeostasis (10). CD200 has also been proposed as a stem cell marker in many solid tumors and it has been hypothesized that cancer stem cells may evade immune system by inducing a tolerogenic response through CD200/CD200R interaction. Moreaux et al. reported a negative prognostic role of aberrant expression of CD200 in multiple myeloma plasma cells (11,12). Tazawa et al. observed a longer overall survival (OS) in CD200 negative, compared to CD200 positive, myeloma patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide and thalidomide therapy (13). In CLL, despite its clear diagnostic significance and in vitro evidence that CD200 overexpression generates an tolerogenic microenvironment by inhibiting T cell proliferation, suppressing tumor-specific T cell and expanding regulatory T cells, a negative role of CD200 on survival probability has not been demonstrated so far. Rather, Miao et al. reported a shorter time to treatment in CLL patients with low expression of CD200 (14).

Conversely, a negative impact of CD200 overexpression is emerging in myeloid neoplastic disease. Chen et al. reported a significant correlation between CD200 expression and WHO subtype and IPSS risk in a group of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, and in multivariate analysis CD200 overexpression was found to have a negative prognostic role (15).

In 2007, Tonks et al. first reported on CD200 expression in 184 acute myeloid leukemia (AML). They found high frequency of CD200 and high intensity of expression in patients with core binding factor (CBF) associated translocations, that are generally associated with favorable response to therapy (16). Nonetheless, survival analysis stratified for CBF abnormalities demonstrated a lower OS probability in CD200 positive patients, indicating that CD200 have a negative prognostic value in AML. The same group later demonstrated that also in AML CD200 has the potential to induce the formation of Tregs, able to suppress the anti-leukemia response in vitro and thus regulating tumor immunity (17).

Our group evaluated the impact on survival and the association of CD200 with other prognostic factors in 244 patients with AML (18). CD200 aberrant expression was found in 56% of patients, with 30% of them displaying high intensity of expression. CD200 expression was more frequent in secondary AML, in CD34 positive cases, in Bcl2 overexpressing cases and in wild-type Flt3. Complete remission (CR) rate was significantly lower in CD200+ compared to negative ones (56% vs. 76%) and CD200 was associated to a shorter OS (3-year OS: 31% vs. 45%;). CD200 has an additive negative impact on survival in patients with unfavorable cytogenetic and in secondary leukemia; moreover, it exerted a worsening effect on prognosis of AML patients with favorable biological markers, such as mutated NPM, wild-type Flt3 and CD34 negativity.

In line with these results, we further analyzed CD200 expression in 139 patients with cytogenetically-normal (CN) AML (19). CD200 overexpression was again present in around half of the patients (48%), at high intensity in 28% of positive cases, and correlated with CD34 and Bcl2 expression. Also in the subset of CN-AML, CD200 expression was associated with a lower rate of CR (63% vs. 79%), with a further reduction in cases with high CD200 expression (50%). Three-year OS was 51% in CD200− and 27% in CD200+ patients, with a significant difference among cases with low or high CD200 expression (35% vs. 0%).

Moving from the observation of the frequent co-expression of CD200 and Bcl2, we investigated the role of concomitant aberrant CD200 and Bcl2 expression on outcome of 291 adult AML patients. The 94 patients (32%) displaying double positivity (DP) had the lower CR rate (57%, compared to 64% in the whole population and 77% in double negative patients) and the shorter survival (3-year OS 23%) (personal data, unpublished).

Taken together, this data points to CD200 as a direct or indirect target of new immunomodulating agents. There is evidence in CLL that the BTK/ITK inhibitor ibrutinib and the selective BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib increase effector and effector memory subsets and down-modulate expression of immunosuppressive CD200 and BTLA molecules, thus restoring immune reactivity (20), and recent in vitro data suggest its potential activity also in AML (21). Moreover, considering the linkage between PD1–PD1L1 and CD200/CD200R pathways in modulation of immune response, also PD1 inhibitors could be candidates to reverse the immunosuppressive milieu induced by CD200. Finally, a monoclonal antibody anti CD200 (omalizumab, ALSX6000, Alexion Pharmaceuticals) is under investigation not only in lymphoproliferative disease but also in elderly, de novo AML patients.

In conclusion, although CD200 flow cytometric evaluation should be considered in selected patients, either for prognostication of if candidate for new target therapy involving CD200 pathway. Inter-laboratory trials should be planned to standardize analysis, make results comparable and find the appropriate cut-off level of expression.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Campo E, Swerdlow SH, Harris NL, et al. The 2008 WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms and beyond: evolving concepts and practical applications. Blood 2011;117:5019-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Barna G, Reiniger L, Tátrai P, et al. The cut-off levels of CD23 expression in the differential diagnosis of MCL and CLL. Hematol Oncol 2008;26:167-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Sandes AF, de Lourdes Chauffaille M, Oliveira CR, et al. CD200 has an important role in the differential diagnosis of mature B cell neoplasms by multiparameter flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2014;86:98-105. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Palumbo GA, Parrinello N, Fargione G, et al. CD200 expression may help in differential diagnosis between mantle cell lymphoma and B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Res 2009;33:1212-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Challagundla P, Medeiros LJ, Kanagal-Shamanna R, et al. Differential expression of CD200 in B cell neoplasms by flow cytometry can assist in diagnosis, subclassification, and bone marrow staging. Am J Clin Pathol 2014;142:837-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Lesesve JF, Tardy S, Frotscher B, et al. Combination of CD160 and CD200 as a useful tool for differential diagnosis between chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other mature B cell neoplasms. Int J Lab Hematol 2015;37:486-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Rahman K, Kumar P, Gupta R, et al. Role of CD200 in differential diagnosis of mature B cell neoplasm. Int J Lab Hematol 2017;39:384-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Mason E, Pozdnyakova O, Li B, et al. Flow Cytometric Patterns of CD200 and CD1d Expression Distinguish CD10-Negative, CD5-Negative Mature B cell Lymphoproliferative Disorders. Am J Clin Pathol 2017. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Alapat D, Coviello-Malle J, Owens R, et al. Diagnostic usefulness and prognostic impact of CD200 expression in lymphoid malignancies and plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;137:93-100. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Talebian F, Bai XF. The role of tumor expression of CD200 in tumor formation, metastasis and susceptibility to T lymphocyte adoptive transfer therapy. Oncoimmunology 2012;1:971-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Moreaux J, Hose D, Reme T, et al. CD200 is a new prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;108:4194-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Olteanu H, Harrington AM, Hari P, et al. CD200 expression in plasma cell myeloma. Br J Haematol 2011;153:408-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Tazawa S, Shiozawa E, Homma M, et al. CD200 Expression on Plasma Cell Myeloma Cells is Associated with the Efficacies of Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Thalidomide. J Clin Exp Hematop 2015;55:121-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Miao Y, Fan L, Wu YJ, et al. Low expression of CD200 predicts shorter time-to-treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Oncotarget 2016;7:13551-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Chen JX, Mei LP, Chen BG, et al. Over-expression of CD200 predicts poor prognosis in MDS. Leuk Res 2017;56:1-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Tonks A, Hills R, White P, et al. CD200 as a prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia 2007;21:566-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Coles SJ, Hills RK, Wang EC, et al. Increased CD200 expression in acute myeloid leukemia is linked with an increased frequency of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells. Leukemia 2012;26:2146-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Damiani D, Tiribelli M, Raspadori D, et al. Clinical impact of CD200 expression in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and correlation with other molecular prognostic factors. Oncotarget 2015;6:30212-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Tiribelli M, Raspadori D, Geromin A, et al. High CD200 expression is associated with poor prognosis in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia, even in FlT3-ITD-/NPM1+ patients. Leuk Res 2017;58:31-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Long M, Beckwith K, Do P, et al. Ibrutinib treatment improves T cell number and function in CLL patients. J Clin Invest 2017;127:3052-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Wu H, Hu C, Wang A, et al. Ibrutinib selectively targets FLT3-ITD in mutant FLT3-positive AML. Leukemia 2016;30:754-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/jlpm.2017.08.08
Cite this article as: Damiani D, Tiribelli M. CD200 in hematological malignancies: just a diagnostic tool or more? J Lab Precis Med 2017;2:77.