George, Tracy I

Abstract Eosinophilia and eosinophil activation are recurrent features in various reactive states and certain hematologic malignancies. In patients with hypereosinophilia (HE), HE‐induced organ damage is often encountered and may lead to the diagnosis of a hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A number of known mechanisms and etiologies contribute to the development of HE and HES. Based on these etiologies and the origin of eosinophils, HE and HES are divided into primary forms where eosinophils are clonal cells, reactive forms where an underlying reactive or neoplastic condition is detected and eosinophils are considered to be “non‐clonal” cells, and idiopathic HE and HES in which neither a clonal nor a reactive underlying pathology is detected. Since 2012, this classification and the related criteria have been widely accepted and regarded as standard. However, during the past few years, new developments in the field and an increasing number of markers and targets have created a need to update these criteria and the classification of HE and HES. To address this challenge, a Working Conference on eosinophil disorders was organized in 2021. In this conference, a panel of experts representing the relevant fields, including allergy, dermatology, hematology, immunology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, met and discussed new markers and concepts as well as refinements in definitions, criteria and classifications of HE and HES. The outcomes of this conference are presented in this article and should assist in the diagnosis and management of patients with HE and HES in daily practice and in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials.

AbstractEnumeration of blasts and promonocytes is essential for World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myelomonocytic neoplasms. The accuracy of distinguishing blasts, promonocytes and monocytes, including normal vs abnormal monocytes, remains controversial. The objective of this analysis is to assess concordances between experienced hematopathologists in classifying cells as blasts, promonocytes, and monocytes according to WHO criteria. Each of 11 hematopathologists assessed glass slides from 20 patients [12 with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and 8 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)] including blood and BM aspirate smears, and limited nonspecific esterase (NSE) stains. All cases were blindly reviewed. Fleiss’ extension of Cohen's kappa for multiple raters was used on these variables, separately for peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM). Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess correlations between each pair of hematopathologists for each measurement. For the classification based on the sum of blasts and promonocytes in the BM, Fleiss’ kappa was estimated as 0.744. For PB, categorizing patients according to the sum of blasts and promonocytes, Fleiss’ kappa was estimated as 0.949. Distinction of abnormal monocytes from normal monocytes in PB did not achieve a good concordance and showed strong evidence of differences between hematopathologists (P < .0001). The hematopathologists achieved a good concordance rate of 74% in CMML vs AML classification and a high k rate, confirming that criteria for defining the blasts equivalents (blasts plus promonocytes) could be applied consistently. Identification of monocyte subtypes (abnormal vs normal) was not concordant. Our results support the practice of combining blasts/promonocytes into a single category.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).

Context.— The classification and prognosis determination in acute leukemia (AL) are complex and it is unclear what testing is being performed in practice. Objective.— To survey physicians describing their current practice of test ordering in the diagnosis of AL. Design.— In anticipation of a guideline by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society for Hematology on laboratory testing needed for the initial workup of AL, a baseline survey was designed by an expert panel from CAP. Members of professional societies were asked to describe their current practice of test ordering. Results.— Two hundred ninety-four responses were received with 258 respondents analyzed after the first qualifying survey question regarding initial diagnosis of AL. One hundred seventy-six of 249 respondents (70.7%) were board-certified hematopathologists. Flow cytometry and karyotype analysis were routinely performed for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (99.1% [232 of 234] and 96.2% [225 of 234], respectively) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (98.3% [229 of 233] and 96.6% [225 of 233], respectively). In addition, fluorescence in situ hybridization studies were routinely performed by 81.2% (190 of 234) of respondents for AML and 85.0% (198 of 233) of respondents for ALL; other molecular studies were performed by 78.2% (183) for AML and 54.9% (128) for ALL; immunohistochemistry by 44.9% (105) for AML and 47.6% (111) for ALL; and cytochemistry by 24.8% (58) for AML and 14.2% (33) for ALL. Conclusions.— While flow cytometry and karyotyping are routinely reported as being performed for the diagnosis of AL, there is marked variation in the reporting of testing patterns for other genetic studies, immunohistochemistry, and cytochemistry.

It is controversial whether acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with 20–29% bone marrow (BM) blasts, formerly referred to as refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation (RAEBT), should be considered AML or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) for the purposes of treatment and prognostication. We retrospectively studied 571 de novo AML in patients aged >50 years, including 142 RAEBT and 429 with ≥30% blasts (AML30), as well as 151 patients with 10–19% BM blasts (RAEB2). RAEBT patients were older and had lower white blood count, but higher hemoglobin, platelet count, and karyotype risk scores compared to AML30, while these features were similar to RAEB2. FLT3 and NPM1 mutations and monocytic morphology occurred more commonly in AML30 than in RAEBT. RAEBT patients were treated less often with induction therapy than AML30, whereas allogeneic stem cell transplant frequency was similar. The median and 4‐year OS of RAEBT patients were longer than those of AML30 patients (20.5 vs 12.0 months and 28.6% vs 20.4%, respectively, P = 0.003); this difference in OS was manifested in patients in the intermediate UKMRC karyotype risk group, whereas OS of RAEBT patients and AML30 patients in the adverse karyotype risk group were not significantly different. Multivariable analysis showed that RAEBT (P < 0.0001), hemoglobin (P = 0.005), UKMRC karyotype risk group (P = 0.002), normal BM karyotype (P = 0.004), treatment with induction therapy (P < 0.0001), and stem cell transplant (P < 0.0001) were associated with longer OS. Our findings favor considering de novo RAEBT as a favorable prognostic subgroup of AML. Am. J. Hematol. 89:E193–E199, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is characterized by accumulation of neoplastic mast cells and is classified into indolent and aggressive forms. The latter include aggressive SM (ASM), mast cell leukemia (MCL), and SM associated with a myeloid neoplasm wherein 1 or both disease compartments exhibit advanced features. These variants, henceforth collectively referred to as advanced SM for the purposes of this report, are typically characterized by organ damage and shortened survival duration. In contrast to indolent SM, in which symptoms are usually managed by noncytotoxic antimediator therapy, cytoreduction is usually necessary for disease control in advanced SM. Unfortunately, current drug treatment of these patients rarely results in complete clinical and histopathologic remissions or improved survival time. Previously defined response criteria were adapted to the heterogeneous presentations of advanced SM and the limited effects of available drugs. However, recent advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of SM and the corresponding prospect in targeted therapy make it a priority to modify these criteria. Our current study is the product of an international group of experts and summarizes the challenges in accomplishing this task and forwards a new proposal for response criteria, which builds on prior proposals and should facilitate response evaluation in clinical trials.