Shi, Min

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a heterogeneous group of T-cell lymphomas that currently are classified by the presence or absence of ALK tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes (ALK+ or ALK−) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous, or breast implant-associated). Two overarching molecular types of ALCL recently were discovered, defined by the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of a gene expression signature highly enriched for JAK-STAT3 activation. Fusions involving non-ALK TK genes occur in some ALK− cases, but the fusion landscape of ALCL remains incompletely characterized. Methods: Expert consensus pathology review was conducted in the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). RNAseq was performed and fusions were identified using FusionCatcher. Here, we focused on recurrent in-frame coding fusions. Previously unreported fusions were validated by RT-PCR. Type I/II was assigned using a previously validated gene expression-based model. Genes with adjusted (adj) P<0.05 were considered differentially expressed. Overall survival (OS) was assessed for systemic ALCL, when available. Results: We evaluated 379 ALCLs (229M/150F; mean age, 56 y). Of 199 candidate fusions (excluding reciprocal events), 28 were recurrent and passed quality metrics. At least 1 of these 28 fusions was present in 150 cases (40%). ALK fusions were present in 106 ALK+ ALCLs (all Type I; P<0.0001). Of these, NPM1::ALK was seen in 68/106 (64%). Alternate partners (X::ALK) included ATIC (N=24) and CTLC, COL1A2, MSN, MYH9, RNF213, SATB1, TFH, TPM3, and TRAF1 (1-3 cases each). X::ALK was associated with older age (mean, 52 y) than NPM1::ALK (32 y; P<0.0001) and showed relative overexpression of 49 genes, including multiple activators of small GTPases such as CGNL1 (FC, 5.6; Padj=2.4×10-6), SRGAP1, ALS2, DOCK1, and NCKAP1. ALK expression was similar in cases with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK and there was no significant difference in OS. Non-ALK TK fusions were seen in 17/273 ALK− cases (6%), including TYK2 (N=9); JAK2 (N=6); and ROS1 (N=2). All were Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001). ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions overexpressed 38 genes compared to ALK− cases without TK fusions, including cytokines involved in the IL17 signaling pathway such as CXCL6 (FC, 12.5; Padj=4.2×10-3), CXCL1, and CSF3. We then assessed the relationship between ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions and ALK+ cases by separately comparing each subset to ALK− cases without TK fusions. FC values for ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were significantly correlated with FC values for ALK+ ALCLs over the set of expressed genes (R=0.54; P<0.0001). At a median follow-up of 32 months, 0/4 systemic ALCL patients with non-ALK TK fusions had died, while 30% of those with ALK− ALCL without TK fusions had died, but this was not statistically significant (P=0.26). The other 13 ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were either localized ALCLs or did not have outcome data available. Of 20 TP63 fusions, 17 (85%) were TBL1XR1::TP63 and 3 were X::TP63. As previously reported, TP63 fusions were associated with poor OS (median OS, 10 months; not reached for other ALK− ALCLs; P=0.007). Four ALCLs had a novel NCL::UBTF fusion involving genes encoding the nucleolar proteins nucleolin and nucleolar (upstream binding) transcription factor-1. Four cases each had PARG::BMS1 and TNK1::GPS2 (the latter seen only in Type I ALCLs). Conclusions: This large consortium-based analysis of coding fusions further elucidates the molecular distinction between Type I and Type II ALCLs. Both ALK and non-ALK TK fusions were seen exclusively in Type I ALCLs, which we have shown previously are enriched for JAK-STAT3 pathway genes and correlate strongly with pSTAT3Y705 positivity by immunohistochemistry. These fusions were not identified in Type II ALCLs, which previous data suggest are associated with epigenetic alterations. ALK+ ALCLs with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK showed differences in gene expression, suggesting biological differences. Furthermore, ALCLs with non-ALK TK fusions shared gene expression features with ALK+ ALCL. Clinical fusion detection could enhance molecular classification of Type I and Type II ALCLs and may guide precision therapy.

Background: Flow cytometry (FC) is widely utilized for the identification of minimal residual disease (MRD) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), providing an essential laboratory indicator for prognostic assessment and therapeutic management. Unfortunately, the high level of expertise required, long manual analysis time, and complexity of FC data files limit the offering of this testing to selected reference laboratories. Methods: We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) pipeline to automatically enhance unaltered FC files, minimizing the expertise and manual analysis time needed to detect CLL MRD on a single-tube 10-color panel (CD5, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD38, CD43, CD45, CD200, kappa and lambda). Raw FC files corresponding to peripheral blood or bone marrow specimens from 166 CLL MRD positive cases (MRD < 5%, median = 0.17%, 122 patients), and 61 MRD-negative cases (45 patients) were processed through our CCADDAS (Clustering and Classification of All events, Dimensionality reduction, Downsampling and Aberrancy Scaling) pipeline on a cloud environment (Google Vertex AI). Automated processing steps included elimination of acquisition errors (FlowCut), state-of-the-art clustering (PARC), dimensionality reduction (UMAP), cluster-based anomaly detection compared to negative controls (15 bone marrow aspirates and 14 peripheral bloods), and cluster-informed downsampling with preservation of low-event subsets. In addition, a deep neural network (DNN) trained on expert-defined subpopulations from negative controls was included for automatic gating of normal subsets (Tensorflow v2). AI-enhanced data files were analyzed using a general purpose flow cytometry analysis software (Kaluza v 3.5, Beckman Coulter), and %MRD estimates compared to reported results based on expert analysis of original FC files. Results: Cluster-informed downsampling reduced the number of cells per case to be manually analyzed from 1.1 million to 165,010 cells on average (85% cellularity reduction); resulting in a smaller FC data file (from 62.1 MB to 15.2 MB; 75% data reduction). Importantly, low-level MRD events were adequately preserved after downsampling (median 100% retention for both MRD<0.01% and MRD 0.01-1%). True number of events were accurately estimated on gated subsets using an “upsampling factor” parameter [observed # events x mean (upsampling factor)]. Gating of normal subsets was completely automated using a DNN classifier parameter. Rapid identification of suspected MRD was aided by an AI-generated “aberrancy scale” parameter that discriminated CLL MRD (mean ± 2SD: 969 ± 144) from background B-lymphoid cells (mean ± 2SD: 395 ± 401) (p<0.0001) (AUC = 0.98), with a performance superior to CD5 (AUC = 0.93), CD20 (AUC = 0.83), CD43 (AUC = 0.8) and CD200 (AUC = 0.7). Immunoglobulin light chain-positive CLL MRD was visually identified on a pre-calculated UMAP plot as a single-colored cluster, after dual coloring for kappa and lambda. The use of AI-enhanced files reduced manual analysis time from 11.6 minutes (SD = 4.5) to 0.8 minutes (SD = 0.4) per case, on average (p < 0.01) (93% reduction). CLL MRD was detected in all positive cases above clinically relevant threshold (≥0.01%, as recommended by NCCN guidelines), and in 17 of 21 (81%) cases below this threshold, with excellent quantitative correlation with conventional analysis on original FC files (linear regression slope = 1.02, intercept = 0.001%, R squared = 0.98, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: We introduce a largely unsupervised AI pipeline that transforms raw CLL-MRD FC data into a markedly smaller, AI-annotated and software-agnostic FC file, including comparison to normal controls. This CCADDAS pipeline simplifies and accelerates detection of CLL-MRD in clinical diagnostics, reducing number of cells analyzed by 85% and manual analysis time by 93%, without impacting test performance. Moreover, CCADDAS can be utilized for any laboratory-developed CLL-MRD assay, and its small-sized export is compatible with any clinical FC software, computing platform and analysis strategy. Adoption of CCADDAS is likely to facilitate the implementation of CLL MRD FC analysis by more clinical laboratories.

AbstractThe Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) H62—Validation of Assays Performed by Flow Cytometry guideline, released in 2021, provides recommendations for platform workflow and quality system essentials, instrument setup and standardization, assay development and optimization and fit‐for‐purpose analytical method validation. In addition, CLSI H62 includes some recommendations for the validation strategies after a validated flow cytometric method has been modified. This manuscript builds on those recommendations and discusses the impact of different types of assay modifications on assay performance. Recommendations regarding which validation parameters to evaluate depending on the type of modification are provided. The impact of assay modification on the assay's intended use is discussed. When recommending minor deviations from the CLSI H62 process for a laboratory‐initiated assay revision (e.g., specimen numbers for sensitivity, specificity, or precision studies), a rationale based on expert opinion is provided with the understanding that not every laboratory, assay type, and circumstance can be comprehensively addressed in this paper. These recommendations are meant as a practical recommendation and are not intended to be restrictive, prescriptive, or understood as necessarily sufficient to meet every specific requirement from regulatory bodies (e.g., FDA or New York State Department of Health).

Abstract Objectives Large granular lymphocytic leukemia (LGLL) represents a rare neoplasm of mature T cells or natural killer (NK) cells, with an indolent clinical course. Diagnosing LGLL can be challenging because of overlapping features with reactive processes and other mimickers. Methods By presenting 2 challenging cases, we elucidate the differentiation of LGLL from its mimics and highlight potential diagnostic pitfalls. A comprehensive review of the clinicopathologic features of LGLL was conducted. Results Large granular lymphocytic leukemia displays a diverse spectrum of clinical presentations, morphologies, flow cytometric immunophenotypes, and molecular profiles. These features are also encountered in reactive conditions, T-cell clones of uncertain significance, and NK cell clones of uncertain significance. Conclusions In light of the intricate diagnostic landscape, LGLL workup must encompass clinical, morphologic, immunophenotypic, clonal, and molecular findings. Meeting major and minor diagnostic criteria is imperative for the accurate diagnosis of LGLL.