Horny, Hans‐Peter

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.

Mastocytosis is a hematologic neoplasm characterized by expansion and focal accumulation of neoplastic mast cells (MC) in diverse organs, including the skin, bone marrow (BM), spleen, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. The World Health Organization classification divides the disease into prognostically distinct variants of cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Although this classification remains valid, recent developments in the field and the advent of new diagnostic and prognostic parameters created a need to update and refine definitions and diagnostic criteria in MC neoplasms. In addition, MC activation syndromes (MCAS) and genetic features predisposing to SM and MCAS have been identified. To discuss these developments and refinements in the classification, we organized a Working Conference comprised of experts from Europe and the United States in August 2020. This article reports on outcomes from this conference. Of particular note, we propose adjustments in the classification of CM and SM, refinements in diagnostic criteria of SM variants, including smoldering SM and BM mastocytosis (BMM), and updated criteria for MCAS and other conditions involving MC. CD30 expression in MC now qualifies as a minor SM criterion, and BMM is now defined by SM criteria, absence of skin lesions and absence of B- and C-findings. A basal serum tryptase level exceeding 20 ng/mL remains a minor SM criterion, with recognition that hereditary alpha-tryptasemia and various myeloid neoplasms may also cause elevations in tryptase. Our updated proposal will support diagnostic evaluations and prognostication in daily practice and the conduct of clinical trials in MC disorders.

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).