Howard, Matthew T.

Evaluation of T-cell receptor (TCR) β-chain constant region 1 (TRBC1) expression is an alternative T-cell clonality assessment method. However, evaluation of TRBC1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) for distinguishing mycosis fungoides (MF)/Sezary syndrome (SS) from reactive inflammatory infiltrates in skin is incomplete. We evaluated the utility of a novel dual TRBC1-CD3 IHC stain in skin biopsies with MF/SS (n=40), reactive (n=24), or atypical T-cell infiltrates indeterminant for MF/SS (n=9). Twenty of 24 reactive cases showed clear polytypic TRBC1 expression (median percent TRBC1 positivity among CD3-positive T cells [%TRBC1+] 50% in dermis, 42.5% in epidermis among all cases), while 34/40 MF/SS were clearly monotypic (%TRBC1+ either ≤20% or ≥85%) (sensitivity 85.0%, specificity 91.7%, positive predictive value 94.4%, negative predictive value 78.6%). Discordance between TRBC1 expression and diagnosis was associated with few neoplastic/monotypic T cells and/or lack of physical separation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic populations. Among patch/plaque MF/SS, TRBC1 showed similar diagnostic sensitivity (80.0% vs. 86.7%) and high categorical correlation (monotypic vs. not monotypic, 80%) with TCR gene rearrangement results. TRBC1 interpretation was reproducible, with ≥2/3 and 3/3 pathologists rendering identical interpretations in 100% and 86% of cases, respectively, after independent review and 100% agreement following collective review. Digital image analysis confirmed visual %TRBC1+ accuracy ( r =0.9749, P <0.0001). On the basis of these results, we propose %TRBC1+ cutoffs of <25% or >75% for establishing T-cell monotypia in skin. Considering such thresholds, TRBC1-CD3 evaluation facilitated diagnostic refinement in 7/9 (78%) atypical cases. Overall, TRBC1-CD3 IHC clearly and rapidly aids diagnosis of cutaneous T-cell proliferations.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate a large cohort of gallbladder amyloid cases to determine clinical and morphologic features. Methods Cholecystectomy specimens (N = 118) typed using proteomics-based techniques between 2008 and 2023 were identified. Clinical and morphologic features were reviewed. Results Six amyloid types were identified: ATTR (n = 63, 53.4%), AL (n = 46, 39.0%), AA (n = 4, 3.4%), AApoA1 (n = 2, 1.7%), ALECT2 (n = 2, 1.7%), and AEFEMP1 (n = 1, 0.8%). Amyloidogenic mutations were detected in 3 ATTR cases and 2 AApoA1 cases. Morphologic review (n = 26) revealed perimuscular vessel involvement in all cases. Amyloidosis was an unexpected diagnosis first made on the cholecystectomy specimen in half of the patients with clinical information (n = 10). All 9 patients with follow-up had evidence of systemic disease. In 2 patients, cholecystic involvement was initially missed and only retrospectively identified after the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis. Conclusions In patients with clinical data, amyloidosis was often unexpected, the gallbladder was commonly the first tissue sampled with amyloidosis, and all patients had systemic disease. Thorough review of cholecystectomy specimens with careful inspection of perimuscular vessels, coupled with a low threshold for ordering Congo red stain in elderly individuals and amyloid typing using a robust method such as proteomics, can prevent a delay in amyloid diagnosis and management.

Introduction: Outcomes from multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor boards in the molecular era are limited, and the effects of transitioning to virtual formats during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well-documented. This study evaluates how the transition of the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board to a virtual format has impacted its effectiveness and operations. The board, part of the International Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN), involves case presentations, subspecialist reviews, and collaborative recommendations. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board, an integral part of the Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN), conducted a comprehensive review of lymphoma cases from 2014 to 2024. The board's review process involves a structured approach including the presentation of clinical case details, radiology and hematopathology findings, proposed treatment options, relevant literature review, and discussions. From 2014 to 2024, the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board reviewed a total of 722 patients. The review process involves a multidisciplinary team, including physicians, pharmacists, clinical research associates, and trainees. Recommendations and changes related to radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches were documented and tracked prospectively. In March 2020, the board transitioned to a virtual format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This shift allowed for remote participation and continued collaborative review while maintaining the board's structured approach and documentation practices. Results: In a total of 722 patients, changes in care were identified in 423 patients, including 287 with newly diagnosed lymphoma and 136 with relapse or refractory disease. Among those who experienced changes, 94 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 49 had follicular lymphoma, 39 had marginal zone lymphoma, 36 had classical Hodgkin lymphoma, and 29 had mantle cell lymphoma. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 431 patients were analyzed, with 217 (50.3%) experiencing changes. A total of 268 changes were documented among these patients. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 9 patients (2.1% of 431 total patients). Pathologic diagnosis changes were noted in 42 patients (9.7%). Additional testing was recommended for 73 patients (16.9%), and clinical management was altered for 144 patients (33.4%). After transitioning to a virtual format, 291 patients were reviewed post-COVID, with 206 (70.8%) having recommended changes. The total number of change recommendations was 322, reflecting increases across all components compared to previous data, with adjustments for varying numbers of patients reviewed. Specifically, radiologic interpretation changes occurred in 21 patients (7.2%), pathologic diagnosis changes in 57 patients (19.6%), additional testing recommendations for 85 patients (29.2%), and clinical management alterations in 159 patients (54.7%). Conclusion: Transitioning to a virtual format in the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board's continued to demonstrate the effectiveness, with increased changes in diagnostic interpretations and clinical management. These results illustrate the potential of virtual tumor boards to improve collaborative decision-making and adapt to evolving clinical needs.

Abstract Objectives There is a paucity of data on penile amyloidosis. We aimed to assess the frequency of different amyloid types in surgical specimens from the penis involved by amyloidosis and correlate relevant clinicopathologic parameters with proteomic findings. Methods Since 2008, our reference laboratory has performed liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for amyloid typing. The institutional pathology archive and reference laboratory database were queried to retrospectively identify all penile surgical pathology specimens with LC-MS/MS results between January 1, 2008, and November 23, 2022. Archived H&E-stained and Congo red–stained sections were re-reviewed. Results Twelve cases of penile amyloidosis were identified, which represented 0.35% (n = 3,456) of penile surgical specimens. AL-type amyloid was most frequent (n = 7), followed by keratin-type amyloid (n = 3) and ATTR (transthyretin)–type amyloid (n = 2). AL-type amyloid cases often showed diffuse dermal/lamina propria deposition, whereas all keratin-type amyloid cases were localized to the superficial dermis. Two cases with keratin-type amyloid had concomitant cutaneous findings (penile intraepithelial neoplasia and condyloma). Conclusions This series, the largest to date, demonstrates that penile amyloidosis has a heterogeneous proteomic landscape. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study describing ATTR (transthyretin)–type penile amyloid.

The spleen is a commonly encountered specimen in surgical pathology. However, little is known about the incidence, morphologic pattern, and clinical features of spleens involved by amyloidosis. We retrospectively identified 69 spleen amyloid cases typed using a proteomics-based method between 2008 and 2020. The frequency of amyloid types, clinicopathologic features, and distribution of amyloid deposits were assessed. Four amyloid types were detected: immunoglobulin light chain (AL) (N=30; 43.5%); leukocyte chemotactic factor 2 amyloidosis (ALECT2) (N=30; 43.5%); amyloid A (AA) (N=8; 11.6%); and fibrinogen alpha (AFib) (N=1; 1.4%). The splenic amyloid showed 5 distinct distribution patterns: (1) diffuse pattern, exhibited by most AL cases; (2) red pulp pattern, exhibited by most ALECT2 cases; (3) multinodular pattern, seen in subsets of AA and AL-kappa cases; (4) mass-forming pattern, seen in the AFib case; and (5) vascular only, seen in a subset of AA cases. Atraumatic splenic rupture was the most common reason for splenectomy in AL cases, while most ALECT2 spleens were removed incidentally during an unrelated abdominal surgery. Splenomegaly was significantly more common in AA spleens than in AL or ALECT2 spleens and was often the reason for splenectomy in this group. In conclusion, splenic amyloid may be underrecognized as it is often an incidental finding. Although, as expected, many of the spleens were involved by AL amyloidosis, ALECT2 emerged as another common spleen amyloid type. Although the spleen amyloid types exhibited characteristic distribution patterns, proteomics-based typing is warranted as some morphologic overlap still exists. Awareness of ALECT2 as a major spleen amyloid type is important for appropriate diagnostic workup and patient management.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations involving isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 (IDH) are known oncogenic drivers in hematological malignancies, conferring neomorphic enzymatic activity to IDH 1/2, resulting in the oncometabolite, 2-hydroxyglutarae (2-HG). 2-HG in turn suppresses TET activity, making IDH and TET2 mutations synthetically lethal and almost mutually exclusive. The frequency of IDH mutations in CMML is &lt;10% and their prognostic impact remains unclear. We carried out this study in a large database of molecularly annotated CMML patients to better define the clinical profile and prognostic impact of these mutations. Methods: After IRB approval, CMML patients from the Mayo Clinic, Minnesota and the Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC), Tampa, Florida, were included in the study. All patients had bone marrow (BM) biopsies with cytogenetics and molecular genetics done either at diagnosis, or at first referral. Clinical and mutational data were abstracted and retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of CMML diagnosis to date of death/last follow, while AML-free survival (AML-FS) was calculated from date of CMML diagnosis to date of leukemic transformation (LT). Patients that had undergone allogeneic HCT were excluded from the study (n=3). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Blue Sky software. Results: Six hundred and forty four patients were included in the study (Mayo Clinic-357, MCC- 287), median age 71 years (range, 20-95 years), 67.8% being male. Forty-three (6.7%) patients had IDH mutations, 35 (82%) IDH2 and 8 (18%) IDH1; of which, 34 (97%) involved the IDH2R140 hotspot and 5 (62.5%) involved the IDH1R132 hotspot, respectively. The median variant allele fractions (VAF) for IDH1 mutations was 41% (range, 8-46%) and for IDH2 mutations was 46% (range, 7-70%). There were no significant demographic or clinical differences between IDH mutant and wild type CMML patients, with the exception that IDH mutant CMML patients were less likely to be thrombocytopenic (p=0.006), were less likely to have TET2 co-mutations (14% vs 53.2%; p&lt;0.001) and were more likely to have SRSF2 co-mutations (69.8% VS 40.3%; p&lt;0.001). Importantly there were no differences in proliferative or dysplastic subtypes (p=0.3), cytogenetic (p=0.12) and molecular risk stratifications (p=045). There were also no significant demographic or clinical differences between IDH1 vs IDH2 mutant CMML patients. Six (14%) IDH mutant CMML patients had TET2 co-mutations; 5 (83%) with IDH2R140Q (median VAF-28%;all male) and 1 (17%) with IDH1R132H (VAF-44%;female) (Figure 1). Five (11%) IDH2 mutant patients were treated with enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor), none with a durable response, while none of the IDH1 mutant patients received targeted therapy. At last follow up (median 18 months), 337 (52%) deaths and 119 (18.5%) LT have been documented, with IDH mutant patients having a higher LT rate (30.2% vs 17.6%, p=0.04) compared to wildtype patients. The median OS of the entire cohort was 35 months, with no difference in OS between IDH mutant and wild type patients (34.5 vs 35 months, p=0.12), with IDH1 mutant patients having a shorter OS in comparison to IDH2 mutant patients (31 vs 37 months; p=0.005- Figure 1). IDH mutant CMML patients also had a shorter AML-FS in comparison to wild type patients (36.6 vs 210 months, p=0.005), with there being no differential impact on AML-FS of IDH1 vs IDH2 mutations (p=0.26, Figure 1). Conclusions: IDH mutations are infrequent in CMML (7%), with IDH2 mutations being more common than IDH1 mutations (80 vs 20%). IDH mutations co-occur very infrequently with TET2 mutations (14%), with IDH mutant patients being less likely to have thrombocytopenia and more likely to have SRSF2 co-mutations. IDH mutations negatively impacting AML-FS without a significant impact on OS. Prospective clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of IDH1/2 inhibitors in CMML are much needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Komrokji: AbbVie: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Consultancy; BMSCelgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Padron: BMS: Research Funding; Stemline: Honoraria; Taiho: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Blueprint: Honoraria. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.