Fang, Min

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.

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.

NPM1 mutations (NPM1+) are found in about 30% of adult AML. While NPM1+ are generally associated with favorable risk, prior studies have shown that NPM1+ older patients, defined as ≥ 65 years, have significantly worse outcomes. The updated European Leukemia Net 2022 (ELN22) now classifies NPM1+ AML patients with FLT3-ITD (ITD+) and MDS-associated mutations (MDSm+) as adverse-risk, while NPM1+/ITD-/MDSm+ patients remain favorable-risk unless they have an adverse-risk karyotype. A recent report (Chan et al., Blood Adv 2024) found MDSm+ conferred worse OS only in patients ≥ 60 years; however another report (Othman et al., Blood 2024) did not find MDSm+ were significantly associated with adverse outcomes in a larger cohort of NPM1+ patients. To further assess this question, we examined the mutational landscape in a large cohort of pre-treatment, diagnostic specimens from 456 patients enrolled in SWOG clinical trials (SWOG-9031, SWOG-9333, S0106, and S0112) and 126 patients from the UW/FHCC Hematopoietic Repository (Total N=582). Patients were treated with curative intent as per standard practice or clinical trials. Out of the 582 patients, 191 were NPM1+ (33%), of which 148 patients had cytogenetic and long-term outcome data. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence estimates were estimated. C-statistics and AUC for Cox, cause-specific and logistic regression models for overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), time to relapse (TTR, calculated in n=106 who achieved complete remission [CR], death in remission analyzed as a competing risk) and CR were calculated for age, ELN17, and ELN22, as well as ELN17 and ELN22 adjusting for age. ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as adverse-risk (N=5 of 108) demonstrated significantly shorter EFS (HR=2.50, p=0.05) and CR rate (OR=0.20, p=0.024), although with similar OS (HR 1.30, p=0.66) and TTR (HR=1.20, p=0.86). ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as ELN22 intermediate-risk (N=23 of 108) did not show a significant difference in OS (HR 1.47, p=0.20), EFS (HR 1.35, p=0.12), CR rate (OR 0.75, p=0.46), or TTR (HR=1.64, p=0.11) compared to ELN22 favorable-risk. For ELN17 intermediate-risk (N=40), 5 patients were reclassified as ELN22 adverse-risk (12.5%) and had significantly shorter EFS (HR 2.89, p=0.037) compared to ELN22 intermediate risk, although there was not a significant difference in CR rate (OR 0.31, p=0.23) or OS (HR 0.81, p=0.67). We next compared the prognostic significance of age relative to ELN risk classification. Age was associated with higher C-statistics (OS=0.65, TTR=0.57 and EFS=0.60) and AUC (CR=0.64) compared to both ELN17 (OS=0.56, TTR=0.54, EFS=0.54, CR=0.54) or ELN22 (OS=0.57, TTR=0.57, EFS=0.57, CR=0.58). The combination of age and ELN22 resulted in the highest C-statistics for OS, TTR, and EFS (OS=0.68, TTR=0.60, EFS=0.64). To further assess the impact of MDSm on risk-stratification of NPM1+ AML, we performed multivariable analyses adjusting for FLT3-ITD, MDSm, and age in patients without adverse-risk disease. These analyses showed MDSm did not have a significant association with OS when controlling for age or FLT3-ITD. We also compared ELN22 favorable-risk patients with and without MDSm (MDSm+ N=18; MDSm- N=61). Compared with the MDSm-, there was a trend toward an inferior OS (HR 1.85, p=0.054) for MDSm+ patients but not EFS (HR 1.38, p=0.3) or TTR (HR 1.2, p=0.64). When stratified by age (<65, N=53 vs. ≥65, N=26), MDSm+ in younger patients did not show a difference for OS (HR 0.96, p=0.96), EFS (HR 0.63, p=0.53) or TTR (HR 0.4, p=0.37). Older ELN22 favorable-risk patients (≥65) had similarly poor OS (MDSm- HR 3.33 and MDSm+ 3.27, respectively, p=0.001 for both) and EFS (MDSm- HR 3.11 and MDSm+ 2.39, p=0.001 and 0.01) compared to younger MDSm- patients. In our study, the ELN22 guidelines incrementally improve risk stratification for EFS in NPM1+ patients. However, age remains the most prognostic factor, and patients ≥ 65 years have similar adverse clinical outcomes, whether classified as favorable risk by ELN17, ELN22, or incorporating MDSm. Moreover, MDSm do not confer a worse prognosis in NPM1+ patients when accounting for age or FLT3-ITD status. These findings differ from a recent report by Chan et al. and are in keeping with the report by Othman et al. Therefore, further understanding of the underlying biology of age and its effect on NPM1+ AML is needed to improve outcomes for older patients.