“…The criteria that have proven to be most useful in diagnosing monocytic leukemia when ex- Table I hibited as follows are: The presence of marked amounts of sodium fluoride (NaF) -and organophosphate -sensitive esterase splitting naphthol-ASacetates accompanied by relatively faint positive staining reactions with Sudanblack-B and for peroxidase as well as for chloracylesterase [1,47], In fact, all the cases identified by these means as monocytic leukemia behaved accordingly in the further fairly specific tests: (1) they showed an early and abnormally rapid monocyte emigration in skin window experiments [45] with consecutive transformation into macrophages [45]; (2) when cultured in vitro, the leukemic cells transformed depending upon to the culture technique into large vacuolated macrophages or fibroblast-like cells [38,39,50]; (3) in all cases showing predominantly mature cells the serum and urinary lysozyme levels were very high [4,9,40,41]; (4) in the few cases tested, the leukemic cells showed an IgG-receptor activity [9] reported to be specific for the mono cytes and macrophages [22], The 4 criteria listed above plus the cytochemical pattern previously cited provide the most reliable methods for establishing the diagnosis of monocytic leukemia [9]. We had the occasion to study some cases which, according to other authors [27,29,32], should be identified as monocytic leukemia but in our tests failed to show either the typical NaF-sensitive naphthol-AS-acetateesterase as well as the characteristic lysozyme levels or the behaviour typically observed in the skin window experiments oi in the in vitro cultivation.…”