Craig, Fiona E.

AbstractBackgroundBlood involvement by mycosis fungoides (MF)/Sézary syndrome (SS) influences prognosis and therapeutic decisions. MF/SS blood stage is currently determined by absolute CD4 + CD26− or CD4 + CD7‐cell counts, which quantification method may overestimate MF/SS by including CD26− or CD7− normal CD4+ T‐cells, or underestimate disease burden when MF/SS cells show incomplete loss of CD26 and/or CD7. Recently, through the standardization effort led by the International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS), recommendation was made to quantify MF/SS by enumerating immunophenotypically aberrant CD4+ T‐cells, rather than CD26− or CD7− in isolation.MethodsWe compared these two quantitation methods in 309 MF/SS patients who had blood samples analyzed by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) over a 1‐year period.ResultsUsing the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL) criteria, 221 (71.5%) patients had a blood stage corresponding to B0, 57 (18.4%) to B1, and 31 (10%) to B2. By FCI analysis, a total of 62 patients (20.0%) were found positive for MF/SS. Among EORTC B0 patients, 11/221 (5%) were positive by FCI (false negatives), and among EORTC Stage B1 patients, 35/57 (61%) were negative by FCI (false positives). Regarding patients positive for MF/SS cells by FCI, there was an overall excellent correlation (r = .999, p < .001) between the EORTC/ISCL method and FCI method; however, four (6.5%) patients would have an altered B stage between B0 and B1.ConclusionThe MF/SS cell quantification method using immunophenotypic aberrancies, as recommended by the ICCS, allows to distinguish MF/SS cells from background benign T‐cells and enables for more accurate staging, especially among patients currently being considered to have B0 and B1 stage diseases.

Worldwide, millions of women live with breast implants. Therefore, it is important that physicians be aware of an uncommon but possibly serious complication arising from breast implants: breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma most commonly presents as a delayed fluid collection around a textured breast implant or as a mass in the capsule surrounding the implant. The exact pathogenesis of the disease remains unclear. The neoplastic cells of BIA-ALCL show strong uniform staining for CD30 and are consistently negative for activin receptor-like kinase 1. Patients with confirmed cases should be referred to a lymphoma specialist or breast medical oncologist for a complete oncologic evaluation before any surgical intervention. For disease confined to the fluid accumulation or capsule, or both, surgical removal of the implant and complete capsulectomy is the preferred treatment. Postoperative chemotherapy or radiation, or both, are not considered necessary for patients with limited-stage disease and are reserved for advanced disease stages. Generally, BIA-ALCL is a local disease that follows an indolent course and has an excellent prognosis. Although complete remission of disease has occurred in patients with BIA-ALCL, median overall survival is reduced. As of March 2018, approximately 529 unique, confirmed BIA-ALCL cases had been reported in 23 countries. To date, 16 patients have died from BIA-ALCL, and all had extracapsular involvement. The aim of this article is to summarize the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of BIA-ALCL, based on established guidelines, for all practitioners who may care for patients with breast implants.

AbstractA peripheral blood flow cytometric assay for Sézary syndrome (SS) or circulating mycosis fungoides (MF) cells must be able to reliably identify, characterize, and enumerate T‐cells with an immunophenotype that differs from non‐neoplastic T‐cells. Although it is also important to distinguish SS and MF from other subtypes of T‐cell neoplasm, this usually requires information in addition to the immunophenotype, such as clinical and morphologic features. This article outlines the approach recommended by an international group with experience and expertise in this area. The following key points are discussed: (a) At a minimum, a flow cytometric assay for SS and MF should include the following six antibodies: CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8, CD26, and CD45. (b) An analysis template must reliably detect abnormal T‐cells, even when they lack staining for CD3 or CD45, or demonstrate a phenotype that is not characteristic of normal T‐cells. (c) Gating strategies to identify abnormal T‐cells should be based on the identification of subsets with distinctly homogenous immunophenotypic properties that are different from those expected for normal T‐cells. (d) The blood concentration of abnormal cells, based on any immunophenotypic abnormalities indicative of MF or SS, should be calculated by either direct enumeration or a dual‐platform method, and reported.

Introduction There have been few recent therapeutic advances in T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL/LBL), a rare and aggressive malignancy. Intensive chemotherapy +/- allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) can effect cure, realized by only a minority of adults. In distinction to B-ALL, there have been no safe/effective targeted therapies developed in T-ALL/LBL. We therefore performed a focused tissue array to identify novel tumor proteins, including CCR4; evaluated together with established immunophenotypic (IP) T-ALL/LBL subtypes [early-T-precursor (ETP), early non-ETP (Pre/Pro-T), common & late thymocyte]. We evaluated the clinical phenotype and outcome together with clinical and epidemiologic data in patients diagnosed at the 3-site Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC: Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL). Methods Following IRB approval, we identified 50 consecutive T-ALL/LBL patients from 1997 -2019 diagnosed at the 3-site MCCC. Available remnant leukemia/lymphoma paraffin blocks were identified (n=28). Using immunohistochemistry (IHC) we evaluated expression of leukemic antigens of interest (CCR4, CD47, BCL2, BCL6, PD-L1, CD38 and CD123); these were selected based on clinical availability of novel targeted agents, approved or in development for other indications. Tissue array studies were performed and interpreted by a single hematopathologist (L.J) blinded to clinical data, using positive and negative controls, according to standard techniques. We also evaluated the clinical and epidemiological parameters, including different IP subtypes [ETP: CD1a-, sCD3- & CD8-, Pre/Pro-T: CD1a-, sCD3- & CD8+ or CD8- (11 marker T-ALL IP score was used to distinguish CD8- ETP vs. Pre/Pro-T), thymic: CD1a+ and mature: CD1a- & sCD3+] (Khogeer et al., Br J Haematol., 2019) & the presence of the unique MLLT10-PICALM fusion (n=6), as well as therapy and outcome. Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes of interest were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous characteristics) or Fisher's exact test (categorical characteristics), unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models (overall survival), or unadjusted logistic regression models (complete remission after first line treatment). Results We identified the expression of novel targetable tissue proteins in all adult T-ALL/LBL cases [Table 1]. BCL2, CD38 & CD47 were expressed in majority of the cases, and CCR4 [Fig. 1] was expressed in 11/28 (39.3%) cases. CCR4 expression was significantly more common in the Pre/Pro-T (75%) vs. other IP subtypes (19%) (p=0.011); there was no other association of CCR4 expression with clinical characteristics/outcomes. We also observed differences in T-ALL vs. T-LBL, specifically T-ALL patients were more likely to be male (71% vs. LBL 38.9%, p=0.038). Surprisingly, T-LBL patients were more likely to have a family history of leukemia/lymphoma (41.2% vs. T-ALL 0%, p<0.001). In addition, a significantly different distribution of IP subtype in T-LBL was noted [Table 2]. Not surprisingly, T-LBL patients were more likely to receive 1st line Hyper-CVAD therapy (88.2% v. T-ALL 43.3%, p=0.005), & had a longer delay from diagnosis to initiation of therapy (median 14 vs. 4 days, p=0.012), however this did not appear to impact clinical outcome. In contrast, we observed an important association of IP subtype with outcome after therapy, including complete remission (p=0.035), & a trend suggesting differences in survival (p=0.069) [Table 3]. However, MLLT10-PICALM was not associated with any unique clinical features or with outcome (death, p=0.85; CR, p=0.98), although 4/6 patients underwent AlloHCT, suggesting an important role of AlloHCT in this subgroup. No other significant association of epidemiologic risk factors with phenotype or outcome was noted. Conclusion Using focused tissue array we have identified expression of tumor associated proteins in T-ALL/LBL including CCR4 (Pre/Pro-T IP) & others, which may be targets of therapeutic agents like mogamulizumab. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates an important clinical impact of IP subtype in T-ALL/LBL, as well as important clinical & therapeutic differences in T-ALL vs. LBL. This study will help guide development of targeted clinical trials in T-ALL/LBL (CCR4 trial already in development). Further analyses are planned to determine the clinical & epidemiologic association of genetic lesions in this cohort. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND. The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) at the level of 0.01%/10-4 or above is a strong independent predictor of reduced progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with CLL treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Although newer agents such as B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors can result in prolonged survival without achieving complete response, there remains a important role for MRD analysis in assessing therapeutic strategies aimed at disease eradication and cure. This is particularly important in front-line trials for fit patients which now require at least five years of follow-up if PFS is used as an endpoint. The feasibility of using MRD as a surrogate or intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval of new treatments is under review by regulatory agencies but further prospective validation is required. At the same time technology is rapidly evolving and high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies now detect MRD at the 0.0001%/10-6 level. It is therefore important to determine the most effective approaches for quantifying MRD that are compatible with previous studies but sufficiently sensitive for current treatments. AIMS. This collaborative project had two objectives. First, to identify the simplest and most flexible flow cytometry panel capable of detecting MRD at the 0.01%/10-4 or lower, that is compatible with published data and independent of instrument/reagent manufacturer. Second, to compare the flow cytometry approach with HTS analysis using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). METHODS AND RESULTS. A core panel of antibodies for MRD detection was identified by testing an 8-marker combination in 52 samples (27 post-treatment and 25 dilution study) and re-analysing data with serial exclusion of single markers to determine redundancy. A 1-tube core panel of CD19, CD20, CD5, CD43, CD79b, and CD81 was identified and validated against the previously published 2-tube 6-marker and 4-tube 4-marker ERIC panels in 76 samples (19 post-treatment and 57 dilution study). The results showed good concordance (for log-transformed data above the LoQ, linearity=0.977, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.983, average difference=0.026 log, 95% limit of agreement 0.20log) and a limit of detection of 0.001%/10-5 for the 1-tube core panel. Inter-operator variation was similar to CML MRD monitoring with both experienced operators, or inexperienced cytometrists after ~1 hour of specific education, achieving a 95% limit of agreement less than 0.3log in samples with MRD levels ranging from 0.0001 – 100%. The flow cytometry approach was compared with the ClonoSEQ HTS assay in 109 samples (21 dilution study and 88 post-treatment samples, complete data currently available on 13/88). The assay was applicable to the vast majority CLL patients, often with two clonal markers. There was 94% concordance at the 0.01% (10-4) threshold (15 samples with ≥0.01% CLL by both methods, 14 samples with <0.01% by both methods, 1 sample with 0.03% CLL by HTS and <0.003% CLL by flow cytometry, and 1 sample with 0.005% CLL by HTS and 0.012% by flow cytometry. HTS detected CLL IGH sequences in 22% (7/31) samples with no detectable CLL cells by flow cytometry (i.e. CLL level 0.0001-0.001%, 3/13 patient samples and 4/18 dilution samples). HTS demonstrated a relatively high variability in quantification, as seen in previous studies, but with a clear superiority in the limit of detection and good linearity (linearity=0.905, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.870, average difference=0.078 log, 95% limit of agreement 1.5 log). CONCLUSIONS. The 1-tube 6-marker flow cytometry core panel is compatible with published studies, manufacturer-independent and flexible, providing directly quantitative results to 0.001%/10-5 without requiring a pre-treatment sample. HTS requires further work to standardise the quantitative analysis and prospective validation but the ClonoSEQ assay is applicable to >95% of CLL patients, does not require viable cells and is extremely sensitive, detecting residual disease in a significant proportion of cases with <0.01% CLL. The results indicate that flow cytometry and HTS are complementary technologies with a combined approach offering the most reliable way of quantifying CLL at the 0.01%/10-4 threshold while allowing higher sensitivity in clinical trials aimed at disease eradication. Disclosures Rawstron: Roche: Honoraria; Biogen Idec: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; BD Biosciences: Intrasure reagent Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Williamson:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sanders:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Hallek:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hillmen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Flow cytometry (FC) has a well‐established role in the diagnostic evaluation of mature B‐cell neoplasms. Effective assessment for lineage associated antigens, aberrant antigen expression, and immunoglobulin light chain restriction requires a well‐designed, optimized, and controlled FC assay. However, it is important for hematopathologists to know when flow cytometry has a more limited role, and other modalities, such as immunohistochemistry, cytogenetic and molecular testing, are more important. This review will discuss the features of an optimal FC assay for the evaluation of mature B‐cell neoplasms, and the current role of FC in the diagnosis and sub‐classification, prognostic assessment, identification of therapeutic targets, and assessment for disease response to therapy. © 2018 International Clinical Cytometry Society

IntroductionEctopic thymic tissue can arise as an asymptomatic neck mass, which may be detected on imaging studies. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of ectopic thymic tissue in paediatric FNAs and to the correlate clinical, radiological and cytomorphological findings.MethodsFNAs in children with neck and mediastinal lesions performed between January 2012 and July 2016 were reviewed for cases of ectopic thymus. These were then evaluated and correlated with the cytology findings.ResultsOf 739 FNAs, 13 (1.8%) cases from 11 patients showed ectopic thymic tissue. The targeted lesions were in the thyroid (n = 7), submandibular region (n = 1), superior mediastinum (n = 1) and paratracheal region (n = 1). The most common indication was for microcalcifications concerning for papillary thyroid carcinoma on ultrasound (n = 6). Imaging findings included fusiform lesions with linear and punctuate bright echoes. The cytology evaluation showed small lymphocytes with discohesive epithelioid cells in most cases, and proteinaceous fluid in the cystic case. There were rare macrophages and Hassall's corpuscles. Flow cytometry and/or immunostains were performed in all cases, supporting thymic origin.ConclusionEctopic thymic tissue is rarely present as a neck mass or thyroid nodule on FNA biopsy. The ultrasound imaging findings reveal a well‐defined fusiform lesion with punctate bright echoes that could be misinterpreted as papillary thyroid carcinoma. The aspirates show a small lymphoid population, immunophenotypically compatible with thymic T‐cells, in addition to scattered epithelial cells. Therefore, knowledge of the typical ultrasonographic and cytopathological features can help make a definitive diagnosis and avoid more invasive procedures in paediatric patients.

AbstractLaboratory professionals are in an ideal situation to identify CBC and peripheral blood smear findings that raise the possibility of a hematolymphoid neoplasm, and based on this information make recommendations for additional studies, such as flow cytometric immunophenotyping. In some circumstances a definitive diagnosis can be established from the combined peripheral blood morphologic and immunophenotypic findings obviating the need for bone marrow evaluation, such as for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Occasionally flow cytometric studies are superior to morphologic assessment, such as in screening for hairy cell leukemia or identifying lymphocytic‐variant hypereosinophilia. However, there is increasing recognition of small immunophenotypically unusual or abnormal populations of peripheral blood cells, particularly in older patients, which are of uncertain clinical significance, such as monoclonal B lymphocytosis and T‐cell clonopathy. Therefore, it is important to integrate peripheral blood smear review findings with the clinical and other information before recommending flow cytometry. In addition, it is important to recognize situations where the results of peripheral blood smear review and flow cytometric immunophenotyping do not explain the clinical findings.