Moore, Erika M.

Abstract Objectives Per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), bone marrow (BM) evaluation is recommended after starting induction chemotherapy at 14 to 21 days (mid-induction) and 30 to 35 days (postinduction). Timely assessment of residual morphologic and molecular disease is challenging at these time points, given the low cellularity, the lack of CD34 or CD117 expression by blasts in most NPM1-mutated (NPM1mut) AML, and the longer turnaround time for molecular testing. Methods NPM1 mut AML undergoing BM evaluation at mid- and postinduction with concurrent flow cytometry and NPM1 real-time polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing was evaluated. Different cell types positive by NPM1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) were enumerated, and the results were compared with flow cytometry and molecular findings. Results NPM1 IHC demonstrated a sensitivity of 78% and 41% for detecting residual mutation at mid- and postinduction, respectively, with a positive predictive value ranging from 88% to 100%. Of 16 IHC-negative cases, 3 had no residual NPM1 mutation, 12 had very low-level mutation at a variant allele frequency of less than or equal to 21 transcripts, and only 1 had a high-level mutation in a markedly hypocellular BM. Of 24 IHC-positive cases, 22 had residual NPM1 mutation, and 2 showed false-positive staining in only a single cell with no residual NPM1 mutation. The level of IHC staining was mostly proportional to the level of residual mutation. Conclusions Mutation-specific NPM1 IHC is a valuable tool for a rapid assessment of residual morphologic and molecular disease in mid- and postinduction NPM1mut AML.

Abstract Objectives High-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), introduced in the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) revised fourth edition classification, included cases defined by MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements or by high-grade morphology. Diagnostic criteria and nomenclature for these lymphomas were refined in the 2022 WHO fifth edition (WHO-5) classification and International Consensus Classification (ICC). This review describes our approach to the diagnosis of HGBL. Methods Two cases are presented illustrating how we diagnose HGBL, including 1 case harboring MYC and BCL6 rearrangements and a second showing TdT expression in an HGBL with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements. The ways in which these cases are distinguished from other lymphomas with high-grade features and the appropriate nomenclature using WHO-5 and ICC classifications are emphasized. Results An HGBL diagnosis requires integration of morphology, immunophenotype, and genetics and exclusion of other lymphomas with high-grade morphology, including Burkitt lymphoma, B-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (B-LBL/ALL), and blastoid mantle cell lymphoma. A diagnosis of HGBL/large B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration should also be considered in certain patient populations. Conclusions High-grade B-cell lymphomas are subclassified based on morphologic and genetic features. There are differences in the nomenclature and definition of these lymphomas in the WHO-5 and ICC classifications. Distinguishing HGBLs from other mature B-cell lymphomas and B-LBL/ALL is critical so that patients receive appropriate treatment.

Introduction: We previously showed that HIV associated EBV negative (-) diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) of germinal center origins (GCB) have enhanced genomic stability and increased expression of DNA repair genes compared to their HIV negative counterparts (Maguire et al 2019). Given that immune deficiency can be induced virally or therapeutically, including the administration of immunosuppressive drugs post solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, we questioned whether these observations are specific to HIV or if they represent a more global immune impaired signature. Here we assessed the genomic stability of monomorphic DLBCL post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) and the potential role of DNA repair. Methods: A total of 49 monomorphic DLBCL PTLDs (26 EBV(-), 23 EBV positive (+)) and 170 immune competent (IC) DLBCL (EBV status unknown) were studied. All were pathologically reviewed and samples with <60% tumor content were macro-dissected before RNA/DNA extraction. Cell of origin (COO) profiles were assessed using the DLBCL90 molecular assay which can distinguish primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) from GCB, Activated B-cell (ABC) and unclassified (UNC) DLBCL (Ennishi et al 2019). NanoString gene expression profiling (GEP) was performed using the PanCancer Pathways panel and analyzed using NanoString nSolver Advanced Analysis. Copy number (CN) analysis was performed on a subset of samples (45 PTLD, 41 DLBCL) using the OncoScan CN assay and analyzed using Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) v4.1. All p-values listed were Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted and Mann-Whitney tested for the GEP and CN data respectively. Results: In contrast to IC-DLBCL which are GCB enriched (50%), COO profiling revealed PTLD to be ABC enriched (43%). CN analyses revealed that the median CN/sample for PTLD (0.57, p<0.001), EBV(+)PTLD (0.25, p<0.001) and EBV(-)PTLD (0.80, p = 0.050) tumors were significantly less aberrant than IC-DLBCL (1.01). The data also showed that EBV(+)PTLD are less aberrant than EBV(-)PTLD tumors (0.25 vs 0.80, p<0.001). GEP pathway analysis identified DNA repair as downregulated in PTLD and EBV(+)PTLD but upregulated in EBV(-)PTLD compared IC-DLBCL. Nine DNA repair genes ( RAD51, CCNA2a, CHEK1b, POLR2Da, PCNAa, WHSC1a, GTF2H3a, ATM c, EP300 c) were differentially expressed (DE) in EBV(-)PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL (7 increased, 2 decreased, p ≤ 0.0425): where the most overexpressed gene RAD51, a critical mediator of Homologous Recombination (HR) and the Fanconi Anemia (FA) DNA repair pathways, was not DE in PTLD or EBV(+)PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL. Five a genes were increased in PTLD (p ≤ 0.0204) but not EBV(+)PTLD, 1 b was decreased in EBV(+)PTLD (p = 0.01) but not PTLD and 2 c were reduced in PTLD regardless of EBV status compared to IC-DLBCL (p ≤ 0.0024). Twenty-8 genes were DE in EBV(+)PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL. Of these, 23 were downregulated (p ≤ 0.0418) and included HR, FA and mismatch repair genes ( CHEK1, CHEK2, BRAC1/FANCS, FANCA, FANCB, FANCE, MSH2, MSH6). All but 2/23 were similarly expressed in PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL of which 11 were significant (p ≤ 0.0356). The five upregulated genes ( ZBTB32, DDB2, NBN, POLB, RBX1, p ≤ 0.0092) were also upregulated in PTLD (p ≤ 0.0042) but not EBV(-)PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL. Two additional genes ( SKP1, FBXW7) were also identified as increased in EBV(+)PTLD and PTLD (p ≤ 0.0204) compared to IC-DLBCL. In contrast, SKP1 was increased (p = 2.7E-4) and FBXW7 was decreased (p = 0.3610) in EBV(-)PTLD compared to IC-DLBCL. Together the protein products of RBX1, SKP1 and FBXW7 comprise the functional cores of a complete UPS complex, the SCF FBXW7 E3 ubiquitin ligase which have been reported to regulate the DNA damage response and promote genomic stability. Conclusions: Like HIV associated DLBCL, these results show that PTLD is more genomically stable than IC-DLBCL, and that genomic stability is further enhanced in EBV(+)PTLD which have increased expression of UPS related genes. In contrast, EBV(-)PTLD have increased expression of DNA damage repair genes, including RAD51. In summary, monomorphic DLBCL PTLD tumors have enhanced genomic stability that appears to be mediated by two distinct mechanisms stratified by EBV status. Further work is required to assess if this stratification of mechanisms is unique to PTLD or reflects a more global immune impaired EBV related signature.