Tang, Guilin

Context.— One objective of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and clinical interpretation of abnormalities observed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis when evaluating hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (2005–2024) of FISH challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 2005 through 2024 to identify FISH challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was evaluated to identify potential recurring errors of clinical relevance. Results.— A total of 124 hematologic neoplasm FISH challenges from 2005 to 2024 were provided to participating laboratories, including 45 paper challenges (results and/or images were provided for interpretation purposes), 43 liquid challenges (bone marrow aspirate or peripheral blood), and 36 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue challenges. Of the 124 challenges, 120 (97%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading purposes. Of the 4 failed challenges (3%), 2 (1 liquid, 1 paper) involved the interpretation of atypical FISH signal patterns; 1 (paper) involved the interpretation of FISH signal patterns correlating involvement by myeloid versus lymphoid interphase nuclei; and 1 (liquid) likely involved a specimen processing or handling error that resulted in discordant participant responses. All 36 FFPE tissue challenges exceeded the 80% consensus for grading purposes. Conclusions.— This 20-year retrospective review demonstrates that clinical cytogenomic laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and interpretation of FISH abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.

Abstract Recent updates to monocyte count thresholds recognize oligomonocytic chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (OM-CMML) as an early form of CMML. However, the clinical validity of these changes remains uncertain without incorporating biological and genomic factors. In this study, we analyzed a cohort of 911 patients (249 with OM-CMML, 359 with overt CMML, and 303 with myelodysplastic syndromes) using unsupervised clustering to evaluate the role of genomic determinants in refining CMML diagnosis. Our findings show that CMML molecular signatures (biallelic TET2 mutations or SRSF2-TET2 comutations) are linked to a distinct transcriptome, monocytic bias, classical monocytosis, and a higher risk of progression to overt CMML in OM-CMML cases. We developed a weighted genomic model and diagnostic workflow showing that combining genomic signatures with bone marrow monocyte frequencies in OM-CMML more accurately predicts progression to overt CMML. These findings support integrating genomic determinants and our clinic-ready diagnostic workflow into the CMML diagnostic framework to improve accuracy. Significance: Through comprehensive clinical and genomic profiling of a large patient cohort, alongside immunophenotypic and transcriptional cellular analyses, this study provides evidence that incorporating genomic determinants into the diagnostic criteria for OM-CMML improves diagnostic accuracy and refines the identification of early-stage CMML, thereby preventing misclassification.

Abstract Recent updates to the monocyte count thresholds for diagnosing chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) have recognized oligomonocytic CMML (OM-CMML) as an early stage within the CMML spectrum. However, the clinical validity of these revised criteria remains uncertain without considering biological factors and might misclassify myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with mild monocytosis as CMML. To characterize the genomic landscape of OM-CMML, we evaluated OM-CMML (n=249), MDS (n=304) and myelodysplastic CMML (MD-CMML, n=358) patients (pts) treated at three academic institutions. Targeted next-generation sequencing was performed on bone marrow (BM) at initial diagnosis or first referral. OM-CMML was characterized by lower frequencies of biallelic TET2 (biTET2) and RAS pathway (RASp) gene mutations (BRAF, CBL, KRAS, NF1, NRAS and PTPN11) compared to MD-CMML (p<0.001) but higher frequencies than MDS (p<0.001). BM monocyte frequencies, assessed morphologically, were higher in OM-CMML than in MDS (p<0.001) but lower than in MD-CMML (p<0.001), indicating that OM-CMML is a heterogenous group including true CMML and distinct MDS subsets. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on genomic alterations across all cases (n=911) identified three distinct clusters: 1) TP53 alterations (predominantly multihit TP53) and complex karyotype (TP53-complex); 2) biTET2 or TET2-SRSF2 co-mutation (biTET2/SRSF2); 3) a heterogenous group lacking these features (not otherwise specifiable [NOS]). Among OM-CMML pts, 11%, 34% and 55% belonged to these clusters, respectively. Model-based unsupervised clustering further identified 9 unique clusters that could be consolidated into 6 groups: 1) TP53-complex; 2) biTET2/SRSF2; 3) SF3B1 (without biTET2 or SRSF2); 4) SRSF2 without TET2 and frequent IDH2 mutations (SRSF2-IDH2); 5) ASXL1 and U2AF1 mutations and copy number alterations (CNA-ASXL1/U2AF1); 6) no somatic mutations (No mutation). biTET2/SRSF2 group exhibited monocytic bias with higher AMC, PB and BM monocyte % even among OM-CMML cases. This bias was not attributed to higher RAS pathway mutation frequencies, as biTET2/SRSF2 cases had similar RASp mutation frequencies but lower median variant allele frequencies for RASp mutations compared to NOS cases (9% vs. 21%, p=0.029). PB monocyte partitioning using flow cytometry (FC) in a subset of OM-CMML pts (n=50) demonstrated higher frequency of classical monocytosis (>94% CD14+/CD16- monocytes) in biTET2/SRSF2 vs other OM-CMML. To further determine if biTET2/SRSF2 genotype defines a distinct biological subgroup, we performed RNA-sequencing of BM CD34+ cells from healthy donors (n=15) and pts with OM-CMML (n=12), MD-CMML (n=14) and MDS (n=55). Unsupervised clustering based on gene expression profiles revealed that biTET2/SRSF2 clustered irrespective of their diagnostic group with greater dispersion being observed based on diagnosis. MDS and CMML with biTET2/SRSF2 had less differentially expressed genes compared to MDS and CMML with biTET2/SRSF2 relative to other MDS and CMML genotypes. Among 138 OM-CMML pts in whom progression to overt CMML was evaluable, 37 (27%) progressed to overt CMML of which 26 (70%) belonged to the biTET2/SRSF2 group. Competing risk analysis confirmed higher cumulative incidence and shorter time to CMML progression among biTET2/SRSF2 OM-CMML. Using ElasticNet regression we identified BM monocytosis and 14 genomic variables (including biTET2 and TET2-SRSF2) as predictors of overt CMML progression among OM-CMML. We developed a score-based model able to predict progression with high reliability (AUC 0.805, sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.76). Model accuracy was confirmed by optimism-corrected bootstrap internal validation (AUC 0.668). Monocytic bias, BM classical monocytosis (>94% CD16- monocytes) and higher overt CMML progression in biTET2/SRSF2 was confirmed in a validation cohort (28, 66 and 22 pts with OM-CMML, MDS and MD-CMML, respectively). BM monocytosis of biTET2/SRSF2 was confirmed in this cohort with morphologic and FC monocyte frequency quantification having high concordance (r=0.737, p<0.001). Genomic subgroup analysis discriminated survival outcomes more reliably than diagnostic categories alone. Our findings suggest that the presence of biTET2 or TET2-SRSF2 co-mutations, combined with BM monocytosis, can more reliably identify true CMML cases within the OM-CMML spectrum. Integrating genomic determinants into the CMML diagnostic framework enhances diagnostic accuracy.

Context.— Optical genome mapping (OGM) represents a promising cytogenomic technology that detects structural variants, including fusions, rearrangements, copy number variants, and loss of heterozygosity, in a single assay. Unlike karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or chromosomal microarray, OGM leverages long-molecule imaging to map the whole genome with high resolution. This positions OGM as a novel tool for constitutional and somatic/cancer genomics. However, its current and planned utilization in clinical and research settings remains unknown, necessitating further investigation. Objective.— To investigate the current utilization of OGM in clinical and research laboratories, assess its applications, and evaluate future utilization strategies. Design.— In 2024, a supplemental questionnaire was incorporated into 6 College of American Pathologists proficiency testing programs to evaluate OGM’s utilization. Results.— Of 921 returned questionnaires, 712 were analyzed after duplicates were removed. Sixty-seven (9.4%) currently offered OGM testing: 5.2% (37) for research only, 1.8% (13) for only clinical use, and 2.4% (17) for both. Future adoption plans showed 7.6% (53 of 700 laboratories) and 7.9% (55 of 700 laboratories) aiming to implement OGM clinically within 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common applications included hematologic malignancies and constitutional/germline postnatal disorders, followed by prenatal testing. International laboratories demonstrated statistically higher utilization rates than domestic laboratories ( P = .001). Conclusions.— This first survey on OGM clinical utilization reveals its status as a niche technology, with 67 laboratories currently using it. Its primary clinical applications are in constitutional/germline analysis and hematologic malignancies. Although international laboratories led in 2024, 108 laboratories (domestic and international) plan clinical adoption within 24 months, signaling OGM’s potential for broader integration.

Background: The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure the competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetic testing laboratories through proficiency testing (PT) programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of cytogenetic abnormalities in solid tumors. Methods: Review and analyze 25 years (1999–2023) of solid tumor chromosome analysis PT results, utilizing G-banded karyograms. A retrospective review of results from 1999 to 2023 was performed, identifying the challenges addressing solid tumors. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results: A total of 21 solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 1999–2018. No solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 2019–2023. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for the evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. All 21 cases reached 80% grading consensus for abnormality recognition. However, five cases (24%) failed to reach consensus for nomenclature reporting by participating laboratories. These cases illustrate errors in reporting chromosomal abnormalities, including whole-arm translocations and those involving sex chromosomes. In addition, they highlight the challenges with differentiation of terminal and interstitial deletions, difficulties in identifying correct breakpoints, and omission of brackets in neoplastic cases. Conclusions: This comprehensive 25-year review demonstrates the exceptional proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in accurately identifying chromosome abnormalities in solid tumors, while also highlighting the challenges of reporting specific types of chromosomal abnormalities.

AimsIt is unknown whether Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection can occur in high‐grade B cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, also known as double‐ or triple‐hit lymphoma (DHL/THL).Methods and resultsHere we report 16 cases of EBV+ DHL/THL from screening 846 cases of DHL/THL and obtaining additional EBV+ cases through multi‐institutional collaboration: eight MYC and BCL2 DHL, six MYC and BCL6 DHL and two THL. There were eight men and eight women, with a median age of 65 years (range = 32–86). Two patients had a history of follicular lymphoma and one had AIDS. Nine of 14 patients had an International Prognostic Index of ≥3. Half of the cases showed high‐grade/Burkitt‐like morphology and the other half diffuse large B cell lymphoma morphology. Using immunohistochemistry, the lymphoma cells were positive for MYC (n = 14 of 16), BCL2 (n = 12 of 16), BCL6 (n = 14 of 16), CD10 (n = 13 of 16) and MUM1 (n = six of 14). Using Hans’ algorithm, 13 cases were classified as germinal centre B cell (GCB) and three as non‐GCB. The lymphomas frequently showed an EBV latency Type I with a median EBV‐encoded small RNAs of 80% positive cells (range = 20–100%). After a median follow‐up of 36.3 months (range = 2.0–41.6), seven patients died, with a median survival of 15.4 months (range = 3.4–47.3) after diagnosis of EBV+ DHL/THL. Five of six patients with MYC and BCL6 DHL were alive, including four in complete remission. In contrast, only four of 10 patients with MYC and BCL2 DHL or THL were alive, including two in complete remission. The median survival in patients with MYC and BCL6 DHL was unreached and was 21.6 months in patients with MYC and BCL2 DHL or THL.ConclusionsEBV infection in DHL/THL is rare (~1.5%). Cases of EBV+ DHL/THL are largely similar to their EBV– counterparts clinicopathologically. Our findings expand the spectrum of EBV+ B cell lymphomas currently recognised in the World Health Organisation classification and suggest differences between EBV+ MYC and BCL2 DHL versus EBV+MYC and BCL6 DHL that may have therapeutic implications.

Context.— One goal of the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities in both constitutional and neoplastic specimens, including hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (1999–2018) of conventional chromosome challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 1999 through 2018 to identify karyotype challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was examined to identify potential recurring errors of clinical significance. Results.— Of 288 total conventional chromosome challenges from 1999–2018, 87 (30.2%) were presented in the context of a hematologic neoplasm, based on the provided clinical history, specimen type, and/or chromosomal abnormalities. For these 87 hematologic neoplasm challenges, 91 individual cases were provided and graded on the basis of abnormality recognition and karyotype nomenclature (ISCN, International System for Human Cytogenomic [previously Cytogenetic] Nomenclature). Of the 91 cases, 89 (97.8%) and 87 (95.6%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading of abnormality recognition and correct karyotype nomenclature, respectively. The 2 cases (2 of 91; 2.2%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for abnormality recognition had complex karyotypes. The 4 cases (4 of 91; 4.4%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for correct karyotype nomenclature were the result of incorrect abnormality recognition (2 cases), missing brackets in the karyotype (1 case), and incorrect breakpoint designation (1 case). Conclusions.— This 20-year review demonstrates clinical cytogenetics laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.

AimsRearrangement of the platelet‐derived growth factor receptor B (PDGFRB) gene defines a unique group of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with frequent eosinophilia and high sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This genetic abnormality is also rarely reported in Philadelphia‐like B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia/lymphoma (B‐ALL). PDGFRB rearrangement was initially thought to only occur in cases with 5q31–33 rearrangement as determined with conventional cytogenetics; however, there are reported cases with cryptic rearrangements. We aim to develop a broader strategy for screening of PDGFRB rearrangements of patients with myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms.Methods and resultsWe performed fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation (FISH) for PDGFRB rearrangement in 197 patients, including 70 with B‐ALL, 10 with myeloid neoplasms with 5q31–33 rearrangements, and 117 with eosinophilia (≥0.5 × 109/l in peripheral blood or ≥5% in bone marrow), and identified PDGFRB rearrangement in four of 197 (2.0%) cases. In an attempt to identify clinicopathological and genetic features that may have a stronger association with PDGFRB rearrangement, we analysed 13 patients with confirmed PDGFRB rearrangements, including 10 with myeloid neoplasms and three with B‐ALL. Among the 10 patients with myeloid neoplasms, eosinophilia was present in eight, monocytosis in two, 5q31–33 rearrangement in seven, and abnormal bone marrow morphology in all. All patients with myeloid neoplasms showed an excellent response to imatinib, including a patient in blast crisis. The three B‐ALL patients presented de novo, showed no eosinophilia, had a complex karyotype including 5q31–33 rearrangement, and had clinically aggressive courses with ultimate patient demise.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that a higher yield for the identification of PDGFRB rearrangement may result from an index of suspicion in patients with eosinophilia, monocytosis, bone marrow features of a myeloid neoplasm, and 5q31–33 rearrangement, and patients with Philadelphia‐like B‐ALL.