Ketterling, Rhett P.

Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) can be classified genetically based on rearrangements (R) of the ALK, TP63, and/or DUSP22 genes. ALK-R defines a specific entity, ALK-positive ALCL, while DUSP22-R and TP63-R define subgroups of ALK-negative ALCLs with distinct clinicopathologic features. ALK-R and TP63-R produce oncogenic fusion proteins that can be detected by immunohistochemistry. ALK immunohistochemistry is an excellent surrogate for ALK-R and screening with p63 immunohistochemistry excludes TP63-R in two third of ALCLs. In contrast, DUSP22-R does not produce a fusion protein and its identification requires fluorescence in situ hybridization. However, DUSP22-R ALCL has a characteristic phenotype including negativity for cytotoxic markers and phospho-STAT3Y705. Recently, we also identified overexpression of the LEF1 transcription factor in DUSP22-R ALCL. Here, we sought to validate this finding and examine models for predicting DUSP22-R using immunohistochemistry for LEF1 and TIA1 or phospho-STAT3Y705. We evaluated these 3 markers in our original discovery cohort (n=45) and in an independent validation cohort (n=46) of ALCLs. The correlation between DUSP22-R and LEF1 expression replicated strongly in the validation cohort (P<0.0001). In addition, we identified and validated a strategy using LEF1 and TIA1 immunohistochemistry that predicted DUSP22-R with positive and negative predictive values of 100% after exclusion of indeterminate cases and would eliminate the need for fluorescence in situ hybridization in 65% of ALK-negative ALCLs. This approach had similar results in identifying DUSP22-R in the related condition, lymphomatoid papulosis. Together with previous data, these findings support a 4-marker immunohistochemistry algorithm using ALK, LEF1, TIA1, and p63 for genetic subtyping of ALCL.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.

AbstractThe current study was approached with the assumption that response to induction chemotherapy, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), overshadows pre‐treatment risk variables in predicting survival and therefore be used as an anchor for a simplified risk model. We considered 759 intensively‐treated patients with AML, not promyelocytic: median age 60 years; primary 66%, secondary 25%, and therapy‐related 9%; European LeukemiaNet cytogenetic risk category favorable 8%, intermediate 61%, and adverse 31%. Complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery was achieved in 608 (80%) patients. After a median follow‐up of 22 months, 503 deaths, 272 relapses, and 257 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (AHSCTs) were recorded. Multivariable analysis identified failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 3.8, 95% CI 3.1–4.8), adverse karyotype (2.2, 1.8–2.8), and age >55 years (2.1, 1.6–2.7) as main risk factors for survival. HR‐weighted scoring resulted in four‐tiered risk stratification: low (0 points; N = 183), intermediate‐1 (1 point; N = 331), intermediate‐2 (2 points; N = 117), and high (≥3 points; N = 128), with respective median survival (5‐year rate) not reached (68%), 34 (37%), 13 (20%), and 5 (5%) months (p < .001). FLT3‐ITD mutation was associated with inferior survival in intermediate‐1 (p = .004) and TP53 in intermediate‐2 (p = .06) and high (p = .02) risk disease; the latter was fully accounted for by the close association between TP53 mutation and complex/monosomal karyotype while the observations regarding FLT3‐ITD were not affected by treatment with midostaurin. AHSCT had a favorable impact on survival, most apparent in intermediate‐1 (p < .001), intermediate‐2 (p = .03), and high (p = .01) risk disease. The proposed 3‐factor survival model offers a novel prototype that is amenable to further enhancement by molecular information and was validated in an external cohort of 1032 intensively‐treated AML patients.

Abstract The diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) relies on the identification of PML::RARA fusion. While the majority of APL cases harbor a typical t(15;17)(q24;q21), atypical genetic mechanisms leading to the oncogenic PML::RARA fusion have been reported yet their frequency and scope remain poorly characterized. We assessed the genetic findings of 831 cases with APL investigated with concurrent chromosome banding analysis and dual‐color dual‐fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (D‐FISH) analysis at our institution over an 18.5‐year timeframe. Seven hundred twenty‐three (87%) cases had a typical balanced t(15;17) with both testing modalities. Atypical karyotypic results including complex translocations, unbalanced rearrangements and insertional events occurred in 50 (6%) cases, while 6 (0.7%) cases were cryptic by conventional chromosome studies despite PML::RARA fusion by D‐FISH evaluation. Atypical FISH patterns were observed in 48 (6%) cases despite apparently balanced t(15;17) on chromosome banding analysis. Two hundred fifty (30%) cases displayed additional chromosome abnormalities of which trisomy/tetrasomy 8 (37%), del(7q)/add(7q) (12%), and del(9q) (7%) were most frequent. Complex and very complex karyotypes were observed in 81 (10%) and 34 (4%) cases, respectively. In addition, 4 (0.5%) cases presented as an apparently doubled, near‐tetraploid stemline clone. This report provides the largest appraisal of cytogenetic findings in APL with conventional chromosome and PML::RARA D‐FISH analysis. By characterizing the frequency and breadth of typical and atypical results through the lens of these cytogenetic testing modalities, this study serves as a pragmatic source of information for those involved in the investigation of APL in both the clinical and research laboratory settings.