Wang, Sa A.

AbstractBased on new data and increased understanding of disease molecular genetics, the international consensus classification (ICC) has made several changes in the diagnosis and classification of eosinophilic disorders and systemic mastocytosis. Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia (M/LN‐eo) and gene rearrangements have been renamed as M/LN‐eo with tyrosine kinase gene fusions (M/LN‐eo‐TK). The category has been expanded to include ETV6::ABL1 and FLT3 fusions, and to accept PCM1::JAK2 and its genetic variants as formal members. The overlaps and differences between M/LN‐eo‐TK and BCR::ABL1‐like B‐lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)/de novo T‐ALL sharing the same genetic lesions are addressed. Besides genetics, ICC for the first time has introduced bone marrow morphologic criteria in distinguishing idiopathic hypereosinophilia/hypereosinophilic syndrome from chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified. The major diagnostic criteria for systemic mastocytosis (SM) in the ICC remain largely based on morphology, but several minor modifications/refinements have been made in criteria related to diagnosis, subclassification, and assessment of disease burden (B‐ and C‐findings). This review is to focus on the ICC updates related to these disease entities, illustrated through changes related to morphology, molecular genetics, clinical features, prognosis, and treatment. Two practical algorithms are provided in navigating through the diagnosis and classification systems of hypereosinophilia and SM.

Abstract The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

AbstractObjectivesTo report the findings of the 2019 Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology Workshop within the categories of reactive eosinophilia, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), germline disorders with eosinophilia (GDE), and myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms associated with eosinophilia (excluding entities covered by other studies in this series).MethodsThe workshop panel reviewed 109 cases, assigned consensus diagnosis, and created diagnosis-specific sessions.ResultsThe most frequent diagnosis was reactive eosinophilia (35), followed by acute leukemia (24). Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) received 17 submissions, including chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified (CEL, NOS). Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), MDS/MPN, and therapy-related myeloid neoplasms received 11, while GDE and HES received 12 and 11 submissions, respectively.ConclusionsHypereosinophilia and HES are defined by specific clinical and laboratory criteria. Eosinophilia is commonly reactive. An acute leukemic onset with eosinophilia may suggest core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia, blast phase of chronic myeloid leukemia, BCR-ABL1–positive leukemia, or t(5;14) B-lymphoblastic leukemia. Eosinophilia is rare in MDS but common in MDS/MPN. CEL, NOS is a clinically aggressive MPN with eosinophilia as the dominant feature. Bone marrow morphology and cytogenetic and/or molecular clonality may distinguish CEL from HES. Molecular testing helps to better subclassify myeloid neoplasms with eosinophilia and to identify patients for targeted treatments.

AbstractIntroducing a sensitive and specific peripheral blood flow cytometric assay for Sézary syndrome and mycosis fungoides (SS/MF) requires careful selection of assay design characteristics, and translation into a laboratory developed assay through development/optimization, validation, and continual quality monitoring. As outlined in a previous article in this series, the recommended design characteristics of this assay include at a minimum, evaluation of CD7, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD26, and CD45, analyzed simultaneously, requiring at least a 6 color flow cytometry system, with both quantitative and qualitative components. This article provides guidance from an international group of cytometry specialists in implementing an assay to those design specifications, outlining specific considerations, and best practices. Key points presented in detail are: (a) Pre‐analytic components (reagents, specimen processing, and acquisition) must be optimized to: (i) identify and characterize an abnormal population of T‐cells (qualitative component) and (ii) quantitate the abnormal population (semi/quasi‐quantitative component). (b)Analytic components (instrument set‐up/acquisition/analysis strategy and interpretation) must be optimized for the identification of SS/MF populations, which can vary widely in phenotype. Comparison with expert laboratories is strongly encouraged in order to establish competency. (c) Assay performance must be validated and documented through a validation plan and report, which covers both qualitative and semi/quasi‐quantitative assay components (example template provided). (d) Ongoing assay‐specific quality monitoring should be performed to ensure consistency.

Abstract Objectives To summarize cases submitted to the 2019 Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology Workshop under the category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 rearrangements, focusing on recent updates and relevant practice findings. Methods The cases were summarized according to their respective gene rearrangement to illustrate the spectrum of clinical, laboratory, and histopathology manifestations and to explore the appropriate molecular genetic tests. Results Disease presentations were heterogeneous, including myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), MDS/MPN, acute myeloid leukemia, acute B- or T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (ALL/LBL), or mixed-lineage neoplasms. Frequent extramedullary involvement occurred. Eosinophilia was common but not invariably present. With the advancement of RNA sequencing, cryptic rearrangements were recognized in genes other than PDGFRA. Additional somatic mutations were more frequent in the FGFR1-rearranged cases. Cases with B-ALL presentations differed from Philadelphia-like B-ALL by the presence of an underlying MPN. Cases with FLT3 and ABL1 rearrangements could be potential candidates for future inclusion in this category. Conclusions Accurate diagnosis and classification of this category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms has important therapeutic implications. With the large number of submitted cases, we expand our understanding of these rare neoplasms and improve our ability to diagnose these genetically defined disorders.

Abstract Objectives The 2019 Society for Hematopathology and European Association for Haematopathology Workshop reviewed the spectrum of neoplastic, nonneoplastic, and borderline entities associated with reactive eosinophilia in tissue. Methods The workshop panel reviewed 46 cases covered in 2 workshop sessions. Results The 46 cases were presented with their consensus diagnoses during the workshop. Reactive eosinophilia in lymph nodes and other tissues may be accompanied by or be distinct from peripheral blood eosinophilia. Reactive etiologies included inflammatory disorders such as Kimura disease and IgG4-related disease, which may show overlapping pathologic features and reactions to infectious agents and hypersensitivity (covered in a separate review). Hodgkin, T-cell, and B-cell lymphomas and histiocytic neoplasms can result in reactive eosinophilia. The spectrum of these diseases is discussed and illustrated through representative cases. Conclusions Reactive eosinophilia in lymph nodes and tissues may be related to both nonneoplastic and neoplastic lymphoid proliferations and histiocytic and nonhematolymphoid processes. Understanding the differential diagnosis of reactive eosinophilia and the potential for overlapping clinical and pathologic findings is critical in reaching the correct diagnosis so that patients can be treated appropriately.

Abstract Objectives The 2019 Workshop of the Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology received and reviewed cases covering the spectrum of mastocytosis and related diseases, including morphologic mimics, focusing on recent updates and relevant findings for pathologists. Methods The workshop panel reviewed 99 cases of cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis (SM) and SM and associated hematologic neoplasms (SM-AHN). Results Despite a common theme of KIT mutation (particularly D816V), mastocytosis is a heterogeneous neoplasm with a wide variety of presentations. This spectrum, including rare subtypes and extramedullary organ involvement, is discussed and illustrated by representative cases. Conclusions In the age of targeted treatment aimed at KIT, the accurate diagnosis and classification of mastocytosis has major implications for therapy and further interventions. Understanding the clinical, pathologic, and genetic findings of mastocytosis is crucial for selecting the proper tests to perform and subsequent arrival at a correct diagnosis in this rare disease.

AbstractBackgroundBlood involvement by mycosis fungoides (MF)/Sézary syndrome (SS) influences prognosis and therapeutic decisions. MF/SS blood stage is currently determined by absolute CD4 + CD26− or CD4 + CD7‐cell counts, which quantification method may overestimate MF/SS by including CD26− or CD7− normal CD4+ T‐cells, or underestimate disease burden when MF/SS cells show incomplete loss of CD26 and/or CD7. Recently, through the standardization effort led by the International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS), recommendation was made to quantify MF/SS by enumerating immunophenotypically aberrant CD4+ T‐cells, rather than CD26− or CD7− in isolation.MethodsWe compared these two quantitation methods in 309 MF/SS patients who had blood samples analyzed by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) over a 1‐year period.ResultsUsing the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL) criteria, 221 (71.5%) patients had a blood stage corresponding to B0, 57 (18.4%) to B1, and 31 (10%) to B2. By FCI analysis, a total of 62 patients (20.0%) were found positive for MF/SS. Among EORTC B0 patients, 11/221 (5%) were positive by FCI (false negatives), and among EORTC Stage B1 patients, 35/57 (61%) were negative by FCI (false positives). Regarding patients positive for MF/SS cells by FCI, there was an overall excellent correlation (r = .999, p < .001) between the EORTC/ISCL method and FCI method; however, four (6.5%) patients would have an altered B stage between B0 and B1.ConclusionThe MF/SS cell quantification method using immunophenotypic aberrancies, as recommended by the ICCS, allows to distinguish MF/SS cells from background benign T‐cells and enables for more accurate staging, especially among patients currently being considered to have B0 and B1 stage diseases.

AbstractA peripheral blood flow cytometric assay for Sézary syndrome (SS) or circulating mycosis fungoides (MF) cells must be able to reliably identify, characterize, and enumerate T‐cells with an immunophenotype that differs from non‐neoplastic T‐cells. Although it is also important to distinguish SS and MF from other subtypes of T‐cell neoplasm, this usually requires information in addition to the immunophenotype, such as clinical and morphologic features. This article outlines the approach recommended by an international group with experience and expertise in this area. The following key points are discussed: (a) At a minimum, a flow cytometric assay for SS and MF should include the following six antibodies: CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8, CD26, and CD45. (b) An analysis template must reliably detect abnormal T‐cells, even when they lack staining for CD3 or CD45, or demonstrate a phenotype that is not characteristic of normal T‐cells. (c) Gating strategies to identify abnormal T‐cells should be based on the identification of subsets with distinctly homogenous immunophenotypic properties that are different from those expected for normal T‐cells. (d) The blood concentration of abnormal cells, based on any immunophenotypic abnormalities indicative of MF or SS, should be calculated by either direct enumeration or a dual‐platform method, and reported.