Arber, Daniel A.

ABSTRACT This study aimed to distinguish between essential thrombocythemia (ET) and prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (pre‐PMF) using routine blood tests, with a focus on white blood cell (WBC) and platelet (PLT) levels. We evaluated the predicted probability of a pre‐PMF diagnosis based on the interaction between WBC and PLT levels using data from a logistic regression model involving 891 patients with ET and 180 patients with pre‐PMF. Patients were divided into four groups based on whether their WBC and PLT values were below or above the respective thresholds of 8.85 × 10 9 /L and 793 × 10 9 /L. The results showed that patients with low levels of both WBCs and PLTs had the lowest predicted probability of pre‐PMF (6%), indicating a profile more typical of ET. When either WBC or PLT levels were elevated, the probability increased to approximately 18%–19%, indicating a potential shift toward pre‐PMF features. Notably, patients with elevated levels of both WBCs and PLTs had the highest probability of a pre‐PMF diagnosis (26%), which was more than four times higher than that of the low–low group. The association between combined WBC/PLT levels and a pre‐PMF diagnosis remained significant ( p < 0.001), even when adjusting for serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and splenomegaly. These findings suggest that elevated WBC and PLT levels together can serve as a practical and accessible diagnostic tool for supporting the differential diagnosis of ET or pre‐PMF in cases of uncertainty, and for deferring bone marrow biopsy in cases of early disease presenting with isolated thrombocytosis.

ABSTRACTThe current study includes 910 patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) seen at the Mayo Clinic from 1968 to 2024. The primary objective was to examine the prognostic contribution of the International Consensus Classification (ICC), in the context of the Mayo Alliance Prognostic System (MAPS) for SM. World Health Organization classification (WHO‐HAEM5) subcategories included (i) indolent/smoldering SM (ISM/SSM; N = 518), (ii) SM associated with another hematological neoplasm (SM‐AHN; N = 273), with the latter including both myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms, (iii) aggressive SM (ASM; N = 106), and (iv) WHO‐defined mast cell leukemia (MCL; N = 13), which included mast cells with both “mature” and “immature” morphology. The ICC‐defined subcategories were mostly similar with the exception that SM‐AHN was replaced by SM associated with another myeloid neoplasm (SM‐AMN; N = 235) and WHO‐defined MCL was replaced by ICC‐defined MCL (N = 8), which included only those with immature MC morphology. Overall survival (OS) was similar between WHO‐defined MCL (median 1.8 years) vs. SM‐AHN (median 2.3 years; p = 0.3) but significantly different between ICC‐defined MCL (median 0.08 years) vs. SM‐AMN (median 2.0 years; p < 0.01). Significant difference in OS was also apparent between ICC‐defined SM‐AMN and SM associated with lymphoid neoplasm (SM‐ALN; median 8.1 years; HR 3.4; p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis confirmed the inter‐independent prognostic contributions of both ICC‐defined morphologic subcategories and MAPS risk variables, including age > 60 years, anemia, alkaline phosphatase > ULN, and platelet count < 150 × 109/L (p < 0.03 in all instances); the same was not true for WHO‐HAEM5‐defined SM subcategories. The addition of mutational information into the multivariable model resulted in ousting anemia and inclusion of ASXL1 (p < 0.01), SRSF2 (p = 0.01), and NRAS (p = 0.01) mutations as additional risk factors. Classification of SM by ICC is prognostically more accurate, compared to WHO‐HAEM5, and strengthens the prognostic contribution of morphology to current clinical and molecular risk models.

We investigated the prognostic impact of blast counts, TP53 allelic state determinants (number of hits, del(17p), variant allele frequency, complex karyotype),and a novel karyotypic clonal cell fraction (≤50% clonal cells vs >50% clonal cells (termed ‘CK50’)) in 495 individuals with TP53- mutated ( TP53 MUT ) myeloid neoplasms. Outcome examined was 24-month survival (OS24). The cohort (median age 71) included 29% (144/495) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)/MDS-acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (1%–19% blasts) and 71% (351/495) AML (≥20% blasts), with 18% (81/460) having low CK50. Overall, 83% received front-line hypomethylating agents. Higher blast counts (<20% vs ≥20%) were marginally associated with CK50 (p=0.08). In the OS24 analysis, blast count showed a marginal association with OS24 (HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.6); p=0.07), while CK50 predicted significantly inferior outcomes (HR=1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.3); p=0.002). In a multivariable model including all TP53 allelic state determinants, only CK50 and complex karyotype remained relevant for predicting adverse outcomes.

Abstract Objective The successful diagnosis and classification of lymphoid neoplasms in blood and bone marrow is the responsibility of the practicing pathologist. This guide provides a general “roadmap” for this process, from initial case recognition to final classification. Methods The integration of hematologic, morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic features for the full spectrum of precursor and mature B-cell, T-cell, and natural killer–cell neoplasms that typically manifest in blood and bone marrow is included. Results Classification systems for lymphoid neoplasms provide criteria for pathologists to render a diagnosis that is optimal for patient care, treatment, and outcome prediction. Conclusions This guide provides diagnostic strategies for lymphoid neoplasms encountered in blood and bone marrow specimens using both the International Consensus Classification and the World Health Organization fifth edition classification systems. Key tips are provided for each entity along with testing requirements, differential diagnosis, nonneoplastic mimics, and other unique features based on the experience of the Bone Marrow Pathology Group members.

e18590 Background: TP53 mutations ( TP53 MUT ) are known to be associated with adverse prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and multihit TP53 MUT in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The prognostic relevance of multihit TP53 MUT in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) was recently highlighted. The current study illustrates survival comparisons in multihit TP53- mutated MPN vs. AML and analysis of associated risk factors. Methods: A Mayo Clinic enterprise-wide database search identified 61 MPN and 81 AML cases with multihit TP53 MUT . Conventional statistical methods were used for analyses. Results: 142 patients with multihit TP53 MUT were included: i) chronic phase MPN (MPN-CP; N=19), ii) accelerated phase MPN (MPN-AP; N=14), iii) blast phase MPN (MPN-BP; N=28) and iv) AML, not including MPN-BP (N=81). Concomitant ASXL1 MUT , EZH2 MUT , IDH1 MUT and IDH2 MUT were more common in MPN-BP, compared to AML. At a median follow up of 0.6 years, 124 (87%) deaths and 19 (13%) allogeneic stem cell transplantations (ASCT) were documented. Overall survival (OS), calculated from time of TP53 MUT detection was similar between MPN-BP (median 4.6 months) and MPN-AP (5.6 months; p=0.5). OS in MPN-BP/AP (median 4.8 months) was inferior to that of AML (median 7.4 months; p=0.04) while that of MPN-CP (median 11.6 months) was similar to AML (0.07) but superior to that of MPN-BP/AP (p<0.01). Age-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) confirmed the independent prognostic significance of undergoing ASCT (HR 0.4, p=0.03), MPN-CP or achieving response to pre-transplant therapy (HR 0.2, p<0.01), and concurrent TET2 MUT or DNMT3A MUT (HR 2.7, p<0.01) on OS. Based on these risk factors, a 3-tiered risk model was constructed: low (no risk factors; N=18; median OS 23.8 months); intermediate (1 risk factor; N=44; median 11.1 months); and high (2 or more risk factors; N=80; median 4 months; p<0.01). Comparative analysis of risk factors among distinct diseases confirmed the prognostic significance of ASCT (HR 0.3, p=0.03), achieving response to pre-transplant therapy (0.4, p<0.01) and concurrent TET2 MUT or DNMT3A MUT (HR 5.0, p<0.01) in AML. In MPN AP/BP, OS was influenced by having received chemotherapy vs. supportive care (HR 0.1; p<0.01) and achieving response to pre-transplant therapy (0.2, p<0.01). No significant risk factors for OS were identified in MPN-CP. In MVA, ASCT did not appear to influence OS in MPN AP/BP (p=0.7) and MPN-CP (p=0.4) but the number of informative cases was too low to make definitive conclusions. Conclusions: The current study highlights the equally detrimental impact of multihit TP53 MUT in securing long-term survival in MPN and AML. Short-term survival was positively influenced by ASCT, at least in AML, and disease stage or remission status at time of mutation detection and ASCT, respectively.

The approach to eosinophilia and mast cell disorders in the bone marrow is diverse and depends on multiple factors including access to ancillary testing, resources to support testing, type of practice setting (eg, community, remote, tertiary care center or specialized referral center for these disorders) and whether there are options for clinical trial enrollment. That said, while there are some basic principles to the workup that we can all likely agree upon, individual practice habits will need to be tailored to suit an individual setting. As such, the approach presented in this manuscript is meant to serve as a practical guide and not as dogma per se. Importantly, an in-depth discussion of individual diseases and International Consensus Classification diagnostic criteria will not be covered, as the main focus of this article is the approach to these disorders. The reader is referred to a comprehensive discussion of these diseases and diagnostic criteria in several excellent articles. While there are clear areas of overlap between eosinophilia and mast cell conditions (eg, systemic mastocytosis associated with eosinophilia, myeloid neoplasm with eosinophilia, and tyrosine kinase rearrangements), it is the authors’ opinion that it is perhaps easier to navigate these entities separately (eg, eosinophilia as one broad topic and mast cell conditions as another) and to recognize the settings in which overlap may exist and what testing might be considered. Eosinophilia and mast cell conditions will be discussed separately supplemented by generous use of figures and tables to highlight key points.

Abstract “Nonclassical” myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPNs) represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations. Unlike classical MPNs, there is no standardized management approach for these conditions, particularly concerning the indications for and management of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. To address this gap, the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Practice Harmonization and Guidelines (PH&G) Committee and the Chronic Malignancies Working Party (CMWP) have collaborated to develop shared guidelines aimed at optimizing the selection and management of patients with these rare forms of neoplasms. A comprehensive review of the literature from the publication of the revised fourth edition of the (2016) World Health Organization classification onward was conducted. A multidisciplinary group of experts in the field convened to produce this document, which was developed through multiple rounds of draft circulation. Key recommendations include the early identification of potential transplant candidates, particularly in cases of chronic neutrophilic leukemia, chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL)/CEL, not otherwise specified (CEL-NOS), myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions with FGFR1, JAK2, ABL1, and FLT3 rearrangements, MDS/MPN with neutrophilia/atypical chronic myeloid leukemia, and MDS/MPN, NOS. For patients with MPN, NOS/MPN unclassifiable, standard recommendations for myelofibrosis should be applied. Similarly, in MDS/MPN with thrombocytosis, transplantation is recommended on the basis of established MDS guidelines. Given the current lack of robust evidence, this document will serve as a valuable resource to guide future research activities, providing a framework for addressing critical unanswered questions and advancing the field.

Abstract This retrospective analysis aimed to provide evidence-based risk stratification of TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MNs). Of 580 MNs harboring TP53mut with variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥2%, 219 (37.8%), 194 (33.4%), 92 (15.9%), and 75 (12.9%) were classified as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with low blasts (MDS-LB), MDS with excess blasts (MDS-EB)-2, and -EB1 according to the revised fourth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, respectively. Hierarchical analysis identified the following 4 risk groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB, (2) MDS-EB1/EB2/AML VAF &lt;10%, (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 VAF ≥10%, and (4) AML VAF ≥10%. We next evaluated the impact of allelic status, VAF, and complex karyotype (CK). In our cohort, the significance of biallelic status was limited to MDS with &lt;5% blasts and not for blasts 5% to 9%, as proposed by the International Consensus Classification (ICC), or 5% to 19%, as proposed by the fifth edition of the WHO (WHO-5). MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% had comparable survival (9.6 vs 7.2 months; P = .12), regardless of allelic status. Contrary to the ICC proposal, MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF &lt;10% and CK had poor survival compared with those without CK, comparable to MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (5.6 vs 26.2 vs 6.3 months; P = .003). Survival of TP53mut AML was poor (median 3.9 months) regardless of allelic/CK status. Thus, using ICC or WHO-5 may underestimate prognosis of MDS with blasts 5% to 19% and 5% to 9%, respectively. Collectively, the hierarchical model acknowledges poor survival of 91.9% TP53mut MDS and AML compared with 36.5% and 80.7% by WHO-5 and ICC, respectively.

ABSTRACTA total of 142 patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) associated with multihit TP53 mutations (mTP53 MUT) were accessed from the Mayo Clinic database and included (i) chronic phase MPN (MPN‐CP; N = 19), (ii) accelerated phase MPN (MPN‐AP; N = 14), (iii) blast phase MPN (MPN‐BP; N = 28), and (iv) AML (N = 81). Concurrent ASXL1 MUT, EZH2 MUT, IDH1,MUT and IDH2 MUT were more common in MPN‐MUTBP‐mTP53 compared to AML‐mTP53 MUT. At median of 11.6 months follow‐up, 124 (87%) deaths and 19 (13%) allogeneic stem cell transplantations (ASCT) were documented. Overall survival (OS), calculated from the time of mTP53 MUT detection, was similar between MPN‐BP‐mTP53 MUT (median 4.6 months) and MPN‐AP‐mTP53 MUT (5.6 months; p = 0.5) but both were inferior to MPN‐CP‐mTP53 MUT (11.6 months, p < 0.01). OS in MPN‐CP‐mTP53 MUT was similar to that of AML‐mTP53 MUT (median 7.4 months, p = 0.07). In multivariable analysis, OS was favorably affected by ASCT (HR 0.4, p = 0.03) and disease stage (i.e., chronic phase disease) or achieving response to pre‐transplant chemotherapy (HR 0.2, p < 0.01) and unfavorably by the presence of concurrent TET2 MUT or DNMT3A MUT (HR 2.7, p < 0.01). Based on these risk factors, a 3‐tiered risk model was constructed: low (no risk factors; N = 18; median OS 23.8 months); intermediate (one risk factor; N = 44; 11.1 months); and high (two or more risk factors; N = 80; 4 months; p < 0.01). The current study highlights the equally detrimental impact of mTP53 MUT on long‐term survival in MPN and AML and identifies predictors of short‐term survival.