Gotlib, Jason

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.

Abstract The basis for acquired resistance to JAK inhibition in patients with JAK2-driven hematologic malignancies is not well understood. We report a patient with a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with a BCR activator of RhoGEF and GTPase (BCR)–JAK2 fusion with initial hematologic response to ruxolitinib who rapidly developed B-lymphoid blast transformation. We analyzed pre-ruxolitinib and blast transformation samples using genome sequencing, DNA mate-pair sequencing (MPseq), RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), and chromosomal microarray to characterize possible mechanisms of resistance. No resistance mutations in the BCR-JAK2 fusion gene or transcript were identified, and fusion transcript expression levels remained stable. However, at the time of blast transformation, MPseq detected a new IKZF1 copy-number loss, which is predicted to result in loss of normal IKZF1 protein translation. RNA-seq revealed significant upregulation of genes negatively regulated by IKZF1, including IL7R and CRLF2. Disease progression was also characterized by adaptation to an activated B-cell receptor (BCR)–like signaling phenotype, with marked upregulation of genes such as CD79A, CD79B, IGLL1, VPREB1, BLNK, ZAP70, RAG1, and RAG2. In summary, IKZF1 deletion and a switch from cytokine dependence to activated BCR-like signaling phenotype represent putative mechanisms of ruxolitinib resistance in this case, recapitulating preclinical data on resistance to JAK inhibition in CRLF2-rearranged Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia.