Horny, Hans-Peter

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

AbstractObjectivesTo report the findings of the 2019 Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology Workshop within the categories of reactive eosinophilia, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), germline disorders with eosinophilia (GDE), and myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms associated with eosinophilia (excluding entities covered by other studies in this series).MethodsThe workshop panel reviewed 109 cases, assigned consensus diagnosis, and created diagnosis-specific sessions.ResultsThe most frequent diagnosis was reactive eosinophilia (35), followed by acute leukemia (24). Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) received 17 submissions, including chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified (CEL, NOS). Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), MDS/MPN, and therapy-related myeloid neoplasms received 11, while GDE and HES received 12 and 11 submissions, respectively.ConclusionsHypereosinophilia and HES are defined by specific clinical and laboratory criteria. Eosinophilia is commonly reactive. An acute leukemic onset with eosinophilia may suggest core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia, blast phase of chronic myeloid leukemia, BCR-ABL1–positive leukemia, or t(5;14) B-lymphoblastic leukemia. Eosinophilia is rare in MDS but common in MDS/MPN. CEL, NOS is a clinically aggressive MPN with eosinophilia as the dominant feature. Bone marrow morphology and cytogenetic and/or molecular clonality may distinguish CEL from HES. Molecular testing helps to better subclassify myeloid neoplasms with eosinophilia and to identify patients for targeted treatments.

Abstract Objectives To summarize cases submitted to the 2019 Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology Workshop under the category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 rearrangements, focusing on recent updates and relevant practice findings. Methods The cases were summarized according to their respective gene rearrangement to illustrate the spectrum of clinical, laboratory, and histopathology manifestations and to explore the appropriate molecular genetic tests. Results Disease presentations were heterogeneous, including myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), MDS/MPN, acute myeloid leukemia, acute B- or T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (ALL/LBL), or mixed-lineage neoplasms. Frequent extramedullary involvement occurred. Eosinophilia was common but not invariably present. With the advancement of RNA sequencing, cryptic rearrangements were recognized in genes other than PDGFRA. Additional somatic mutations were more frequent in the FGFR1-rearranged cases. Cases with B-ALL presentations differed from Philadelphia-like B-ALL by the presence of an underlying MPN. Cases with FLT3 and ABL1 rearrangements could be potential candidates for future inclusion in this category. Conclusions Accurate diagnosis and classification of this category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms has important therapeutic implications. With the large number of submitted cases, we expand our understanding of these rare neoplasms and improve our ability to diagnose these genetically defined disorders.

Abstract Objectives The 2019 Society for Hematopathology and European Association for Haematopathology Workshop reviewed the spectrum of neoplastic, nonneoplastic, and borderline entities associated with reactive eosinophilia in tissue. Methods The workshop panel reviewed 46 cases covered in 2 workshop sessions. Results The 46 cases were presented with their consensus diagnoses during the workshop. Reactive eosinophilia in lymph nodes and other tissues may be accompanied by or be distinct from peripheral blood eosinophilia. Reactive etiologies included inflammatory disorders such as Kimura disease and IgG4-related disease, which may show overlapping pathologic features and reactions to infectious agents and hypersensitivity (covered in a separate review). Hodgkin, T-cell, and B-cell lymphomas and histiocytic neoplasms can result in reactive eosinophilia. The spectrum of these diseases is discussed and illustrated through representative cases. Conclusions Reactive eosinophilia in lymph nodes and tissues may be related to both nonneoplastic and neoplastic lymphoid proliferations and histiocytic and nonhematolymphoid processes. Understanding the differential diagnosis of reactive eosinophilia and the potential for overlapping clinical and pathologic findings is critical in reaching the correct diagnosis so that patients can be treated appropriately.

Abstract Objectives The 2019 Workshop of the Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology received and reviewed cases covering the spectrum of mastocytosis and related diseases, including morphologic mimics, focusing on recent updates and relevant findings for pathologists. Methods The workshop panel reviewed 99 cases of cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis (SM) and SM and associated hematologic neoplasms (SM-AHN). Results Despite a common theme of KIT mutation (particularly D816V), mastocytosis is a heterogeneous neoplasm with a wide variety of presentations. This spectrum, including rare subtypes and extramedullary organ involvement, is discussed and illustrated by representative cases. Conclusions In the age of targeted treatment aimed at KIT, the accurate diagnosis and classification of mastocytosis has major implications for therapy and further interventions. Understanding the clinical, pathologic, and genetic findings of mastocytosis is crucial for selecting the proper tests to perform and subsequent arrival at a correct diagnosis in this rare disease.

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.