Back to Authors

Pullarkat, Sheeja T.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1490-2374

Mayo Clinic

University of California, Los Angeles

Citations 6

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Hodgkin Lymphoma, Version 2.2022
Hoppe, Richard T. , Advani, Ranjana H. , Ambinder, Richard F. , Armand, Philippe , Bello, Celeste, Benitez, Cecil M. , Chen, Weina , Dabaja, Bouthaina S. , Daly, Megan E. , Hansen, Neil, Herrera, Alex F. , Hochberg, Ephraim P. , Johnston, Patrick B. , Kaminski, Mark , Kenkre, Vaishalee P. , Lynch, Ryan C. , Maddocks, Kami J. , Metzger, Monika L. , Morgan, David , Mulroney, Carolyn , Pullarkat, Sheeja T. , Rabinovitch, Rachel , Rosenspire, Karen C., Seropian, Stuart , Tao, Randa , Torka, Pallawi , Yang, Joanna C. , Burns, Jennifer L. , Campbell, Mallory, Sundar, Hema, Advani, Ranjana H , Hoppe, Richard T , Ambinder, Richard F , Tao, Randa , Ai, Weiyun Z. , Gordon, Leo I. , Kelsey, Chris R. , Khan, Nadia , McConathy, Jonathan , Winter, Jane N. , Yahalom, Joachim

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | April 7, 2022 | Volume: 20 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 322-334

10.6004/jnccn.2022.0021 Get It

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is an uncommon malignancy of B-cell origin. Classical HL (cHL) and nodular lymphocyte–predominant HL are the 2 main types of HL. The cure rates for HL have increased so markedly with the advent of modern treatment options that overriding treatment considerations often relate to long-term toxicity. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for HL focusing on (1) radiation therapy dose constraints in the management of patients with HL, and (2) the management of advanced-stage and relapsed or refractory cHL.
Expert Curation of Somatic FLT3 Variants By the Clingen Somatic Hematologic Cancer Taskforce (ClinGen HCT)
Shao, Xiangqiang , Mani, Coumarane, He, Rong , Danos, Arpad , Sheta, Lana , Terraf, Panieh, Raca, Gordana , Williams, Heather , Blombery, Piers , Viswanatha, David S., Jiang, Nan , Vavra, Kevin C., Zhang, Liying , Li, Yuwen , Zhong, Yiming , Matthew, Mariam T, Deeb, Kristin K. , Zhang, Fengli , Liu, Jie , Zhao, Xiaonan, Kopp, Nathan , Pondugula, Santhi , Fakim, Yasmina Jaufeerally , Wu, David , Pullarkat, Sheeja T. , Kulkarni, Shashikant , Madhavan, Subha , Kanagal‐Shamanna, Rashmi , Xu, Xinjie , Kanagal-Shamanna, Rashmi , Rao, Shruti , Saliba, Jason , Kesserwan, Chimene A. , Eno, Celeste , Jiang, Nan, Shi, Zonggao , Li, Peng , Ouseph, Madhu M. , Thompson, Ella R. , Krysiak, Kilannin , Wagner, Alex H. , McCoy, Matthew , Zhao, Xiaonan, Ferrer, Alejandro , Zhang, Wenying , Griffith, Obi L. , Griffith, Malachi

Blood | November 23, 2021 | Volume: 138 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4387-4387

10.1182/blood-2021-153546 Get It

Abstract Clinical significance of somatic gene variants needs to be comprehensively characterized for their diagnostic, prognostic and/or therapeutic actionability in patient management. However, challenges remain due to discrepancies in interpretation and reporting of these somatic variants among different testing labs. Therefore, standardized curation, clinical interpretation and reporting of somatic variants in hematologic cancers is critical. To address this issue, the Hematologic Cancer Taskforce (HCT), composed of 52 multi-disciplinary experts including oncologists, molecular pathologists, lab directors, genomic scientists and biocurators, was formed in January 2020 within the ClinGen Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) with a goal to undertake systematic curation and evidence-based clinical interpretation of genes/somatic variants associated with hematologic malignancies. In collaboration with the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) (civicdb.org) knowledgebase, HCT members curate, edit, and verify Evidence Items for each variant extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Monthly discussions based on these Evidence Items lead to the preparation of variant Assertions, which summarize the state of the field consensus variant interpretation and include tiering based on the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines (PMID: 27993330). FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) encodes a class III receptor tyrosine kinase expressed in hematopoietic cells. FLT3 mutations, including both internal tandem duplication (ITD) and mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), are the most common mutations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), occurring in approximately 30% of all AML cases. Implementing FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in different treatment regimens for FLT3 mutated AML patients has led to significantly improved overall survival. Type I FLT3 inhibitors, including midostaurin, gilteritinib, sunitinib, lestaurtinib, and crenolanib, bind to the ATP-binding site when the receptor is in active conformation. Type II FLT3 inhibitors, including sorafenib, ponatinib, and quizartinib, interact with a hydrophobic region directly adjacent to the ATP-binding domain that is only accessible when the receptor is inactive, which prevents receptor activation. Generally in AML cells, type I FLT3 inhibitors prevent activity for both ITD and TKD mutations, while Type II inhibitors target ITD but lack efficiency against TKD mutations. The development of TKD mutations in AML cells with ITD have proved to be a mechanism of acquired, or secondary resistance to Type II FLT3 inhibitors. The HCT is piloting curation assessments of FLT3 alterations, including ITD, TKD and non-TKD variants, in AML. So far, the HCT has curated 75 evidence items for FLT3 somatic variants. FLT3-ITD, as well as D835 and I836 were asserted as tier 1 level A variants based on the prediction of response to gilteritinib in relapsed/refractory AML (PMIDs: 27993330, 31665578, 28645776, 28516360, 27908881). Recent curation activities are focused on FLT3 D839G and N676K, as clinical trials using large AML patient cohorts are lacking in their ability to validate drug response/resistance associations of these two TKD variants due to their low frequency. Functional studies showed both variants result in increased proliferation and protection from apoptosis, supporting the oncogenic potential of these two variants (PMIDs: 26891877, 2468088). FLT3 D839G combined with ITD confers resistance to pexidartinib and ponatinib, both Type II FLT3 inhibitors (PMIDs: 25847190, 23430109). FLT3 N676K predicts response to the Type I FLT3 inhibitor, gilteritinib, when N676K is present alone or in combination with ITD. Interestingly, FLT3 N676K in the absence of ITD predicts response to sorafenib, a Type II FLT3 inhibitor (PMIDs: 32040554, 32984009). However, these results are mostly derived from in vitro studies. Two separate Tier II, Level D Assertions have been submitted for FLT3-ITD&D839G for its response to pexidartinib and ponatinib, and more evidence is being collected to form an Assertion for FLT3 N676K. The complexity of the prediction of response/resistance associated with FLT3 D839G and N676K supports the importance of evidence-based curation and collection for these variants in the context of the overall mutation profile, disease context and specific FLT3 TKIs to clearly define their clinical impact. Disclosures Pullarkat: Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria.
Secondary cytogenetic abnormalities in core-binding factor AML harboring inv(16) vs t(8;21)
Han, Se young, Mrózek, Krzysztof , Morgan, Elizabeth A. , Vestergaard, Hanne , Ohgami, Robert S. , Kluin, Philip M., Kristensen, Thomas Kielsgaard , Pullarkat, Sheeja T. , Møller, Michael , Kim, Young , Czuchlewski, David R., Hilberink, Jacobien R. , Horny, Hans-Peter, Dolan, Michelle, Ku, Nam K., Yi, Cecilia Arana , Pullarkat, Vinod , Kohlschmidt, Jessica, Salhotra, Amandeep , Soma, Lori , Bloomfield, Clara D. , Chen, Dong , Sperr, Wolfgang R. , Marcucci, Guido , Cho, Christina , Broesby‐Olsen, Sigurd , Larson, Melissa L., Deeg, H. Joachim , Hoermann, Gregor , Litzow, Mark R. , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Weisdorf, Daniel J. , Huls, Gerwin , Valent, Peter , Üstün, Celalettin , Morgan, Elizabeth A , Vestergaard, Hanne , Møller, Michael Boe , Schiefer, Ana-Iris , Hilberink, Jacobien R , Arana Yi, Cecilia , Deeg, H Joachim , Perales, Miguel-Angel , Litzow, Mark R. , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Weisdorf, Dan , Valent, Peter , Ustun, Celalettin , Yeung, Cecilia , Chen, Dong , Sperr, Wolfgang , Voutsinas, Jenna M. , Wu, Qian Vicky , Baughn, Linda B. , George, Tracy I. , Akin, Cem , Gotlib, Jason , Linden, Michael A. , Perales, Miguel‐Angel , Hornick, Jason L. , Borthakur, Gautam , Yeung, Cecilia C.S.

Blood Advances | May 18, 2021 | Volume: 5 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2481-2489

10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003605 Get It

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).
Core‐binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21): Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I‐CBFit)
Üstün, Celalettin , Pullarkat, Sheeja T. , Yeung, Cecilia C.S. , Broesby‐Olsen, Sigurd , Ohgami, Robert S. , Kim, Young , Vestergaard, Hanne , Chen, Dong , Kluin, Philip M., Dolan, Michelle, Mrózek, Krzysztof , Czuchlewski, David R., Horny, Hans‐Peter, George, Tracy I. , Kristensen, Thomas Kielsgaard , Ku, Nam K., Yi, Cecilia Arana , Møller, Michael , Marcucci, Guido , Hilberink, Jacobien R. , Pullarkat, Vinod , Shanley, Ryan , Kohlschmidt, Jessica, Coulombe, Janie , Salhotra, Amandeep , Soma, Lori , Cho, Christina , Hoermann, Gregor , Nakamura, Ryo , Deeg, Joachim, Bloomfield, Clara D. , Weisdorf, Daniel J. , Litzow, Mark R. , Valent, Peter , Huls, Gerwin , Yeung, Cecilia , Baughn, Linda, Chen, Dong , Møller, Michael Boe , Weisdorf, Dan , George, Tracy I , Arana Yi, Cecilia , Valent, Peter , Morgan, Elizabeth A. , Moodie, Erica E. M. , Sperr, Wolfgang R. , Baughn, Linda B. , Schiefer, Ana-Iris , Linden, Michael A. , Akin, Cem , Gotlib, Jason , Hornick, Jason L. , Nakamura, Ryo, Perales, Miguel‐Angel , Borthakur, Gautam

Cancer Medicine | August 17, 2018 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 4447-4455

10.1002/cam4.1733 Get It

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).