Kim, Young

AimsIt is unknown whether Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection can occur in high‐grade B cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, also known as double‐ or triple‐hit lymphoma (DHL/THL).Methods and resultsHere we report 16 cases of EBV+ DHL/THL from screening 846 cases of DHL/THL and obtaining additional EBV+ cases through multi‐institutional collaboration: eight MYC and BCL2 DHL, six MYC and BCL6 DHL and two THL. There were eight men and eight women, with a median age of 65 years (range = 32–86). Two patients had a history of follicular lymphoma and one had AIDS. Nine of 14 patients had an International Prognostic Index of ≥3. Half of the cases showed high‐grade/Burkitt‐like morphology and the other half diffuse large B cell lymphoma morphology. Using immunohistochemistry, the lymphoma cells were positive for MYC (n = 14 of 16), BCL2 (n = 12 of 16), BCL6 (n = 14 of 16), CD10 (n = 13 of 16) and MUM1 (n = six of 14). Using Hans’ algorithm, 13 cases were classified as germinal centre B cell (GCB) and three as non‐GCB. The lymphomas frequently showed an EBV latency Type I with a median EBV‐encoded small RNAs of 80% positive cells (range = 20–100%). After a median follow‐up of 36.3 months (range = 2.0–41.6), seven patients died, with a median survival of 15.4 months (range = 3.4–47.3) after diagnosis of EBV+ DHL/THL. Five of six patients with MYC and BCL6 DHL were alive, including four in complete remission. In contrast, only four of 10 patients with MYC and BCL2 DHL or THL were alive, including two in complete remission. The median survival in patients with MYC and BCL6 DHL was unreached and was 21.6 months in patients with MYC and BCL2 DHL or THL.ConclusionsEBV infection in DHL/THL is rare (~1.5%). Cases of EBV+ DHL/THL are largely similar to their EBV– counterparts clinicopathologically. Our findings expand the spectrum of EBV+ B cell lymphomas currently recognised in the World Health Organisation classification and suggest differences between EBV+ MYC and BCL2 DHL versus EBV+MYC and BCL6 DHL that may have therapeutic implications.

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).

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).