Viswanatha, David

ABSTRACT Introduction Composite indolent B‐cell lymphomas may remain unrecognized when one component dominates the clinical presentation. Apparent relapse after therapy may, therefore, represent the emergence of a biologically distinct lymphoma rather than the recurrence of the original disease. Case Presentation An 82‐year‐old woman presented with systemic low‐grade B‐cell lymphoma that was most consistent with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Staging demonstrated peripheral blood involvement and multifocal FDG‐avid disease. Treatment with the CD20×CD3‐bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab resulted in complete metabolic remission. During surveillance, a new, isolated cervical lymph node developed despite sustained systemic response. Biopsy revealed follicular lymphoma (Grade 1–2) with a germinal center phenotype and a BCL2 rearrangement, findings discordant with recurrence of MZL. Retrospective review of the original specimen identified in situ follicular neoplasia within the initial biopsy. The disease course was, therefore, reinterpreted as a synchronous composite lymphoma in which treatment of the dominant MZL unmasked a previously clinically silent B‐cell neoplasm with follicular lineage. Local radiotherapy achieved remission of the follicular component. Conclusions New disease following treatment of an indolent lymphoma should not automatically be interpreted as relapse. Discordant clinical behavior, particularly focal progression after systemic response, warrants repeat biopsy and integrated pathologic reassessment. This case illustrates how therapy may reveal preexisting clonal heterogeneity and emphasizes the importance of temporality in distinguishing relapse from composite lymphoma. Trial Registration The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission

Abstract TP53 and PPM1D are key regulators of DNA damage response and repair, and somatic mutations in these genes often co-occur in hematopoietic cells, expanding under genotoxic stress. Unlike TP53 mutations, where mechanisms of progression are defined, pathways underlying clonal fitness and transformation in PPM1D mutant cells remain unclear. In collaboration with 5 academic institutions, we analyzed the clinical and molecular landscape of 337 patients with clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) across 4 genotypes: PPM1Dmt/TP53wt (n = 170 [50%]), PPM1Dmt/TP53mt (n = 25 [7%]), TP53mt/PPM1Dwt (n = 17 [5%]), and TP53wt/PPM1Dwt (n = 125 [38%]). All PPM1D variants were truncating, located in exon 6 of the gene, with a median variant allele frequency (VAF) of 6% (range, 0.3%-64%). The PPM1Dmt/TP53mt genotype was most frequently encountered in therapy-related CH/CCUS (t-CH/t-CCUS; 80%, 66.5%, 76.5%, and 19%; P ≤ .001) and had a shorter time interval to detection from last genotoxic exposure (6.2, 5.9, 11.25, and 24.5 months; P ≤ .001) compared with PPM1Dmt/TP53wt, TP53mt/PPM1Dwt, and TP53wt/PPM1Dwt genotypes, respectively. Acknowledging the short follow-up duration, rates of malignant transformation were lower in the PPM1Dmt/TP53wt (2%) and PPM1Dmt/TP53mt (4%) groups compared with PPM1Dwt/TP53wt (12%) and PPM1Dwt/TP53mt (17%) groups (P ≤ .001), respectively. In summary, PPM1D mutations are frequently observed in t-CH/t-CCUS, with low median VAFs, and are associated with low rates of progression, even when comutated with TP53.

Background/Objectives: DDX41, DEAD-box RNA helicase 41 gene located on chromosome 5q25.3, is one of the most mutated genes in patients with germline predisposition to myeloid neoplasms. Germline and somatic mutations often have different locations and patterns of mutation, with some hotspots displaying diversity based on ethnicity. We aimed to explore clinical outcomes in patients with various DDX41 hot-spot mutations. Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients at Mayo Clinic with DDX41 mutation identified through Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) between 2018 and 2024. We completed unadjusted comparisons using continuous or categorical variables, and survival rates were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method and cox regression analysis. Results: Overall survival appears to be higher in those with p.M1| when compared to p.Asp140GlyFs*2 and p.Arg525His, with comparable survival between p.Arg525His and p.Asp140GlyFs*2. Among males with p.M1| who underwent bone marrow transplant, those who underwent bone marrow transplant appeared to have lower survival rates, although not statistically significant. Our study was limited by a small sample size, therefore limiting our ability to reach significance. Conclusions: Our findings suggest potential implications for clinical outcomes based on DDX41 mutation hot-spots.

SummaryGermline variants in DDX41 (DDX41MT‐germline predisposition syndrome [GPS]) are associated with predisposition to haematological malignancies (HM), including lymphoid and myeloid neoplasms (MN). We retrospectively analysed the clinical and molecular features of 195 patients diagnosed and treated at Mayo Clinic with DDX41MT‐GPS. Patients with germline DDX41 pathogenic variants (42.3%) and variants of unknown significance (VUS, 57.6%) were included. The median age was 68.6 years (16.2–93.4). Ninety‐two per cent were Caucasian, 64.1% were male and 30.8% had a family history of HM. There were 92 distinct germline variants among our cohort, and the most common was p.Met1? (15.9%), followed by p.Asp140Glyfs*2 (9.2%). Clinical diagnoses included asymptomatic carriers (10.2%), clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS, 6.1%), myeloproliferative neoplasms (6.7%), myelodysplastic syndrome (40.5%), acute myeloid leukaemia (20.5%), lymphoid neoplasms (9.2%), plasma cell dyscrasias (6.1%) and solid tumours (22.5%). Patients with MN were older (median age 70 vs. 63.5 years) and more likely to be male (M:F ratio 2.3 vs. 1.0) and most patients (78.8%) with MN had a normal karyotype. The most common somatic variants involved DDX41 (34.4%), followed by TET2 (11.2%), DNMT3A (9.6%) and ASXL1 (9.2%). In summary, we have comprehensively described the spectrum of clinical phenotypes within the Mayo Clinic DDX41MT‐GPS cohort.

Here we review the ‘what and how’ of molecular techniques used in the context of haematopathological diagnostics of both lymphoid and myeloid neoplasms. Keeping in mind that the required resources for molecular testing are not universally available, we will not only discuss novel and emerging techniques that allow more high‐throughput and sophisticated analyses of lymphoid and myeloid neoplasms, but also the more classical, low‐cost alternatives and even some workarounds for molecular testing approaches. In this review we also address other key aspects around molecular techniques for haematopatholgy diagnostics, including preanalytics, data interpretation, and data management, bioinformatics, and interlaboratory precision and performance evaluation.