Pulitzer, Melissa

Abstract Introduction: The real-world outcomes in patients (pts) with PCALCL in the era of targeted therapies like Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) is not well defined due to lack of large multicenter studies. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis (RWA) to assess patient and disease characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes and impact of novel therapies in this rare type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL). Methods: The analysis included 167 adult (≥18 years) patients (pts) with PCALCL across 9 academic institutions in the United States diagnosed between 01/2012 to 06/2022. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the respective sites. Demographic and disease factors were summarized using descriptive statistics. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log rank tests. Prognostic models included factors such as age, sex, race, performance status (PS), disease stage, type of initial lesion, presence of B symptoms, previous history of lymphomatoid papulosis and prior transplant. Prognostic factors for survival were assessed using both univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 18-93) years. The majority of pts were male (55%) and white (82%), with good PS as indicated by an ECOG 0-1 (71%). The initial skin presentation consisted of tumors in 62% of the pts, while 34% presented with plaques or patches. Notably, no pts presented with erythroderma. Most pts underwent PET scan for staging at initial diagnosis (83%) with the majority having early-stage (IA-IIA) disease (86%). Furthermore, palpable lymph nodes (11%) and the presence of B symptoms (4%) were rare at diagnosis, and no pts had blood involvement. The most common sites of involvement were extremities (33%) followed by the head and neck (H&N) and trunk (31% each). Immunophenotyping revealed CD4 positivity in 59% of pts and CD8 positivity in 25%. The T cell receptor (TCR) rearrangement was positive in 28% of pts, though it was not completed in the majority of cases (72%). Most common initial treatments included localized radiation (61%) and surgical excision (19%). A small subset of pts received frontline systemic chemotherapy regimens such as cytotoxic chemotherapy (11%), BV (8%) and oral methotrexate (MTX) (8%). Approximately 7% of the pts had a stem cell transplant. Overall response rate (ORR) for radiation, oral MTX, BV and cytotoxic chemotherapy were 78% (CR:78% 74/100), 42% (CR:63% 6/12) and 39% (CR:67% 6/12), 89% (CR: 88% 15/18) respectively. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years (range 0.04-10.23), the median RFS and OS were 2.7 years (95% CI:1.86, 3.43) and 12 years (95% CI:10.6- NA) respectively. The estimated 3- and 5-year RFS are 46% (95% CI:0.38, 0.55) and 37% (95% CI:0.28, 0.46) respectively. The estimated 3- and 5-year OS were 89% (95% CI:0.82, 0.93) and 82% (95% CI:0.73, 0.88) respectively. At the time of the last follow-up, 79% were alive, while 21% were deceased. The cause of death (COD) was unknown in 50% of the cases and only 10% (3/of deaths were attributed to lymphoma. Other known CODs included infection (20%) and second malignancies 7%. On univariate analysis (UVA), age (p=.007), female sex (p=.04), ECOG PS 1-2 compared to 0 (p=.007) and prior transplant (p=.009) predicted for worse RFS. On multivariate analysis (MVA), only ECOG PS 1-2 (HR 2.31, 95 CI:1.06, 1.18, p=.009) and prior transplant (HR 5.38, 95 CI:2.30, 12.57, p=.0001) had a significant impact on RFS. Age and presence of B symptoms were strong predictors of OS on both UVA (age p=<.0001; B symptoms p=<.0001) and MVA (age: HR 1.12, 95 CI:1.06, 1.18, p=<.0001; B symptoms: HR 16.48, 95 CI: 3.69, 73.60, p=.0002). However, the impact of B symptoms should be interpreted with caution as only 4% of pts presented with this at baseline. On UVA, each one-year increase in age was associated with an 8.5% rise in the risk of death. ECOG PS 1-2 was associated with worse OS on univariate analysis (HR 2.62, 95% CI 0.99, 6.93, p=.05), but was not significant on MVA (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.368, 2.974, p=.93). Conclusions: In this large RWA of PCALCL, excellent long-term survival was observed with predominantly skin directed frontline therapies. The use of systemic treatments, including BV, was infrequent as first line therapy. Older age and poor PS were significant predictors for reduced survival.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPrimary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) are indolent CD30‐positive lymphoproliferative disorders that rarely express TCR‐γδ. However, primary cutaneous gamma‐delta T‐cell lymphoma (pcGDTCL), characterized by TCR‐γδ expression on neoplastic cells, is a rare, aggressive cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Accurate differentiation is essential due to distinct clinical behavior and treatment.MethodsWe identified 11 TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL cases from internal and consultation files, verified by two cutaneous lymphoma experts, with clinicopathologic data recorded.ResultsThe median age was 68 years (range 38–95). Most cases presented as a single dermal lesion on the upper extremities. All were ALK‐negative, CD30‐positive (> 90% tumor cells), TCR‐βF1‐negative, and diffusely TCR‐γδ‐positive. CD4−/CD8− (54.5%) and CD4+/CD8− (45.5%) immunophenotypes were observed. CD2 (63.6%) and CD3 (54.5%) were the most common T‐cell antigens. Ulceration, inflammation (both 45.5%), and necrosis (36.4%) were frequent. Angiotropism, angiocentricity, and myxoid stroma appeared in one case; epidermotropism in two. Four of ten tested were DUSP22‐rearranged, and TP63 was negative in all eight tested.ConclusionsMost ALK‐negative TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL were CD4−/CD8−, followed by CD4+/CD8−. DUSP22 rearrangement occurred in 40% of cases, similar to reports in typical pcALCL. Its prognosis and the role of DUSP22 are yet to be clarified.

Summary Histiocytic neoplasms are diverse clonal haematopoietic disorders, and clinical disease is mediated by tumorous infiltration as well as uncontrolled systemic inflammation. Individual subtypes include Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), Rosai–Dorfman–Destombes disease (RDD) and Erdheim–Chester disease (ECD), and these have been characterized with respect to clinical phenotypes, driver mutations and treatment paradigms. Less is known about patients with mixed histiocytic neoplasms (MXH), that is two or more coexisting disorders. This international collaboration examined patients with biopsy‐proven MXH with respect to component disease subtypes, oncogenic driver mutations and responses to conventional (chemotherapeutic or immunosuppressive) versus targeted (BRAF or MEK inhibitor) therapies. Twenty‐seven patients were studied with ECD/LCH (19/27), ECD/RDD (6/27), RDD/LCH (1/27) and ECD/RDD/LCH (1/27). Mutations previously undescribed in MXH were identified, including KRAS, MAP2K2, MAPK3, non‐V600‐BRAF, RAF1 and a BICD2‐BRAF fusion. A repeated‐measure generalized estimating equation demonstrated that targeted treatment was statistically significantly (1) more likely to result in a complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) (odds ratio [OR]: 17.34, 95% CI: 2.19–137.00, p = 0.007), and (2) less likely to result in progression (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03–0.23, p < 0.0001). Histiocytic neoplasms represent an entity with underappreciated clinical and molecular diversity, poor responsiveness to conventional therapy and exquisite sensitivity to targeted therapy.

Lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has several histopathologic presentations. LyP featuring gamma-delta (γδ) T-cell receptor expression may masquerade as and may be misdiagnosed as aggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, particularly primary cutaneous γδ T-cell lymphoma (PCGDTL) or γδ mycosis fungoides. We performed a clinicopathologic analysis of the largest series of LyP featuring γδ T-cell expression. We identified 26 patients with a diagnosis of LyP with γδ T cells from our institutions, as well as through a comprehensive review of the literature, and characterized these cases. Most cases were treated with topical steroids or not treated at all. The majority of cases showed a CD4-CD8+ phenotype and featured at least one cytotoxic marker. Histopathologic features included an intraepidermal or dermal infiltrate with large cells and frequent angiotropism. One case was initially misdiagnosed as PCGDTL, requiring further therapy. Our case series, the largest international cohort of γδ T cell predominant LyP cases, confirms marked clinicopathologic heterogeneity that may contribute to misdiagnosis, reasserting the need to identify classic clinical features, CD30+ T-cell components, and markers of cytotoxicity when dealing with this differential diagnosis. A limitation of this study includes somewhat limited follow-up, histologic, and immunophenotypic information for some cases.

AbstractThis review discusses the definition and major categories of cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma, Sézary syndrome and mycosis fungoides, and the role of immunophenotyping in their diagnosis. The following key points are raised: (a) Sézary syndrome and mycosis fungoides cells most often have a characteristic CD3+ CD4+ CD7− and/or CD26− immunophenotype. (b) This immunophenotype is not specific, but can assist in the distinction from non‐neoplastic T cells and other subtypes of mature T‐cell neoplasm. (c) However, small subsets of normal and reactive T‐cells can have an overlapping immunophenotype, and can be distinguished by evaluating for additional changes in antigen expression.

Background: PCGTCL is a rare disorder, accounting for < 1% of all lymphomas. In part given the rarity, timely and accurate diagnosis (dx) remains challenging. Moreover, PCGTCL is typically characterized by a highly aggressive course. We conducted a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis to delineate pathology, patient (pt) characteristics, treatment patterns & outcomes of PCGDTCL in the modern era. Methods: We collected detailed information on pts with PCGDTCL dx between 2000 - 2017 across 10 academic centers. Pathologic data, including IHC & flow characteristics on de-identified pathology reports, were reviewed centrally by an expert dermatopathologist (MP). A pathologic tier was assigned to each case based on fidelity to the following pre-defined minimum criteria: flow cytometric evidence of gamma and/or delta protein-expressing lymphoma or histopathologic evidence of gamma and/or delta protein expression & at least 50% atypical lymphocytes positive for gamma/delta immunostain (IHC) with tissue representative of entire lesion. The presence of >25% CD30 positivity of malignant lymphocytes was an exclusion criterion. Further, PCR evidence of TCR gamma monoclonality or TCR beta/betaF1 negativity alone were inadequate for inclusion with confirmation of gamma/delta phenotype (especially IHC) being key for inclusion. A clinical tier was also assigned to each case based on group consensus. A composite score was derived by combining pathologic & clinical tiers, with those fitting a pre-determined score threshold included in the primary analysis. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model for associations with survival. Results: Collectively, all centers submitted a total of 80 cases that were dx & treated locally as PCGDTCL. 48 (60%) cases met pre-defined criteria for inclusion of bona fide dx of PCGTCL. 26 (33%) cases had insufficient composite scores and were grouped in a 2nd tier & 6 cases had incomplete follow-up data and were unsuitable for analysis. The most common reason for placement in the 2nd tier was negativity for gamma/delta IHC or lack of documentation of such testing (n=16). Among the top tier of 48 veritable cases, 32 pts (67%) were male, 39 (81%) white & 4 (8%) black. Median age was 62 years (range 20-88). 19 (40%) pts had B symptoms at dx; ECOG performance status (PS) 0 in 12 pts (25%) & 1-3 in 22 cases (45%) (unknown 29%); anemia was present in 21 pts (44%) & LDH increased in 22 (46%). Bone marrow was involved in only 3 pts (6%) & hemophagocytic syndrome was present at dx in 6 pts (12%). Frontline therapy was heterogeneous (Table 1) with the most common therapies being bexarotene alone in 8 pts; UV therapy in 6 pts; and CHOP in 4 pts. Furthermore, there was inclusion of etoposide in 12 pts (25%), anthracyclines in 9 (19%) & platinum agents in 3 pts (6%). The overall response to 1st line therapy was 40% (19% complete response) with stable disease in 10%, progression in 35% & unknown in 15%. Seven pts (15%) received consolidative stem cell transplantation (SCT), which was allogeneic in all but 1 case. The 2-year PFS for the 48 bona fide pts was 39% (95% CI 0.26-0.59) (Fig 1A) & 2-year OS was 36% (95% CI 0.23-.56) (Fig 1B). The 26 cases in the 2nd tier had overall similar 2-year PFS of 41% (95% CI 0.15-67) and OS of 37% (95% CI 0.22-0.62). In terms of impact of therapy, use of consolidative SCT in 1st remission was associated with improved survival (P=0.02) (Fig 1C). No other therapeutic variable had significance. In UVA for baseline factors, PS (P=0.006) (Fig 1D) and increased vs. normal LDH (P=0.05) were significantly associated with OS. Median OS for pts with normal LDH was 25 months vs 12 months with increased LDH. Median OS for pts with ECOG PS 0 was not reached vs approximately 14 months for ECOG PS 1-3. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this series represents one of the largest reported to date of PCGDTCL. Accurate diagnosis and classification of PCGDTCL need ongoing analysis and delineation. Using strict criteria, only 60% of cases across 10 academic centers were confirmed as bona fide PCGDTCL. Analysis of these pts treated in the modern era demonstrated modest survival. In addition, we identified several prognostic factors, in particular LDH and ECOG PS, associated with patient outcome. Furthermore, the incorporation of allogeneic SCT in 1st remission may contribute to improved long-term survival. Enhanced treatment options and continued collaboration are critically needed in this rare disease. Disclosures Bennani: Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Haun:Karger, Inc.: Other: Royalties: Textbook. William:Techspert: Consultancy; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Defined Health: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin, Inc.: Consultancy. Mehta-Shah:Kiowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Verastem Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Wilcox:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Feldman:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Corvus: Research Funding. Evens:Tesaro: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Horwitz:Affimed: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

This pathology PILOT study aims to define the role and feasibility of centralized pathology review in a cohort of 75 patients from different centers in the United States and Europe using digital slide scanning. The pathologic material from 75 patients who had been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome and were clinically staged as IIb or above was retrieved from 11 participating centers. Each pathology reviewer was provided with the pathologic diagnosis (by the referring pathologist), and the following list of histopathologic criteria (presence or absence) from the initial report: epidermotropism, folliculotropism (FT), large cell transformation, syringotropism, and granulomas. Patients with advance stage were selected for this study as this is a population where there is significant variability in the diagnosis of pathologic prognostic and predictive biomarkers. The slides were digitally scanned with an Aperio scanner and consensus review of cases occurred when major or minor discrepancies between the referral diagnosis and central pathology review occurred. Among the 75 cases, 70 (93.3%) had a final consensus diagnosis between the 3 central review pathologists. The overall agreement between the consensus review and the referring pathologist was 60%. The overall agreement was also higher between the reviewers and consensus review, compared with the referring pathologist and consensus. 65.3% of cases had some type of discrepancy (major or minor) between the outside and consensus review. Major discrepancies were seen in 34 of 73 cases (46.6%; 73 cases indicated a yes or no response). Minor discrepancies were seen in 32 of 75 (42.7%) of cases. Most of the major discrepancies were accounted by a difference in interpretation in the presence or absence of large cell transformation or FT. Most minor discrepancies were explained by a different interpretation in the expression of CD30. We found digital slide scanning to be a beneficial, reliable, and practical for a methodical approach to perform central pathology review in the context of a large clinical prospective study.