Miranda, Roberto N.

Abstract Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30+ T-cell lymphomas that share pathologic features but differ in presentation, outcome, and genetics. Current classification incorporates clinical presentation and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) status but inadequately addresses molecular heterogeneity and therapeutic vulnerabilities. We studied 689 patients with ALCL in the LLMPP (Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project) and performed expert consensus review, genetic subtyping (ALK, DUSP22, TP63, and triple negative), and immunohistochemistry for phosphorylated STAT3Tyr705. RNA sequencing with unsupervised gene expression profiling in 393 patients identified 2 main molecular types of ALCL that could be predicted with 91% accuracy based on the presence (type I) or absence (type II) of phosphorylated STAT3Y705 expression. Type I ALCLs included ALK+ ALCL and a subset of triple-negative ALCLs (TN-I); type II ALCLs included tumors with DUSP22 and/or TP63 rearrangements and the remaining triple-negative ALCLs (TN-II). Type I ALCLs were enriched for JAK-STAT3, whereas type II ALCLs were enriched for non–tyrosine kinase pathways, particularly epigenetic regulators such as EZH2. Immunohistochemistry showed overexpression of EZH2 and its trimethylated substrate H3K27. Prognosis in systemic ALCL was favorable for DUSP22-rearranged ALCL (5-year overall survival, 95%) and ALK+ ALCL (88%), intermediate for triple-negative ALCL (TN-I, 52% and TN-II, 37%), and poor for TP63-rearranged ALCL (0%). We introduce an integrated molecular classification that preserves currently diagnosed ALCL entities but identifies 4 molecularly distinct ALK− ALCL subtypes (DUSP22-rearranged, TP63-rearranged, TN-I, and TN-II). This classification can be easily implemented on paraffin tissue in routine practice or clinical trials, and stratifies ALCL into diagnostically, prognostically, biologically, and potentially therapeutically relevant subtypes.

Abstract Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) cases were discussed at the 2023 Society of Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology workshop held on November 9-11, 2023, in Houston, Texas. This session focused on the clinical and pathologic spectrum of 3 types of ALCL: anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, ALK-negative, and breast implant associated (BIA). Cases of primary cutaneous ALCL were excluded because they were included in another session. Although the diagnosis of ALCL is often straightforward, the 42 submitted cases encompassed unusual clinical presentations, morphologic variants, and atypical immunophenotypes, exemplifying potential difficulties and challenges in establishing the diagnosis of ALCL. Distinguishing ALCL from CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified, or classic Hodgkin lymphoma was discussed. In patients with a previous history of mycosis fungoides and other T-cell lymphoma/leukemia, the differential diagnosis of a CD30-positive T-cell lymphoma mimicking ALCL (mycosis fungoides transformation vs de novo ALCL) was also discussed. In patients with suspected BIA-ALCL, it is critical to properly handle the periprosthetic fluid when the disease first presents and the capsule at the time of initial capsulectomy to make a correct diagnosis and pathologic staging because a missed diagnosis may lead to disease progression. Comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis; fluorescence in situ hybridization for DUSP22, TP63, or JAK2 rearrangement; assessment of clonality of the T-cell receptor and immunoglobulin genes; and sequencing for mutations were performed as part of the workup of the submitted cases, particularly on ALK-negative ALCL cases, emphasizing the importance of ancillary testing in establishing the diagnosis.

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a heterogeneous group of T-cell lymphomas that currently are classified by the presence or absence of ALK tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes (ALK+ or ALK−) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous, or breast implant-associated). Two overarching molecular types of ALCL recently were discovered, defined by the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of a gene expression signature highly enriched for JAK-STAT3 activation. Fusions involving non-ALK TK genes occur in some ALK− cases, but the fusion landscape of ALCL remains incompletely characterized. Methods: Expert consensus pathology review was conducted in the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). RNAseq was performed and fusions were identified using FusionCatcher. Here, we focused on recurrent in-frame coding fusions. Previously unreported fusions were validated by RT-PCR. Type I/II was assigned using a previously validated gene expression-based model. Genes with adjusted (adj) P<0.05 were considered differentially expressed. Overall survival (OS) was assessed for systemic ALCL, when available. Results: We evaluated 379 ALCLs (229M/150F; mean age, 56 y). Of 199 candidate fusions (excluding reciprocal events), 28 were recurrent and passed quality metrics. At least 1 of these 28 fusions was present in 150 cases (40%). ALK fusions were present in 106 ALK+ ALCLs (all Type I; P<0.0001). Of these, NPM1::ALK was seen in 68/106 (64%). Alternate partners (X::ALK) included ATIC (N=24) and CTLC, COL1A2, MSN, MYH9, RNF213, SATB1, TFH, TPM3, and TRAF1 (1-3 cases each). X::ALK was associated with older age (mean, 52 y) than NPM1::ALK (32 y; P<0.0001) and showed relative overexpression of 49 genes, including multiple activators of small GTPases such as CGNL1 (FC, 5.6; Padj=2.4×10-6), SRGAP1, ALS2, DOCK1, and NCKAP1. ALK expression was similar in cases with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK and there was no significant difference in OS. Non-ALK TK fusions were seen in 17/273 ALK− cases (6%), including TYK2 (N=9); JAK2 (N=6); and ROS1 (N=2). All were Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001). ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions overexpressed 38 genes compared to ALK− cases without TK fusions, including cytokines involved in the IL17 signaling pathway such as CXCL6 (FC, 12.5; Padj=4.2×10-3), CXCL1, and CSF3. We then assessed the relationship between ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions and ALK+ cases by separately comparing each subset to ALK− cases without TK fusions. FC values for ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were significantly correlated with FC values for ALK+ ALCLs over the set of expressed genes (R=0.54; P<0.0001). At a median follow-up of 32 months, 0/4 systemic ALCL patients with non-ALK TK fusions had died, while 30% of those with ALK− ALCL without TK fusions had died, but this was not statistically significant (P=0.26). The other 13 ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were either localized ALCLs or did not have outcome data available. Of 20 TP63 fusions, 17 (85%) were TBL1XR1::TP63 and 3 were X::TP63. As previously reported, TP63 fusions were associated with poor OS (median OS, 10 months; not reached for other ALK− ALCLs; P=0.007). Four ALCLs had a novel NCL::UBTF fusion involving genes encoding the nucleolar proteins nucleolin and nucleolar (upstream binding) transcription factor-1. Four cases each had PARG::BMS1 and TNK1::GPS2 (the latter seen only in Type I ALCLs). Conclusions: This large consortium-based analysis of coding fusions further elucidates the molecular distinction between Type I and Type II ALCLs. Both ALK and non-ALK TK fusions were seen exclusively in Type I ALCLs, which we have shown previously are enriched for JAK-STAT3 pathway genes and correlate strongly with pSTAT3Y705 positivity by immunohistochemistry. These fusions were not identified in Type II ALCLs, which previous data suggest are associated with epigenetic alterations. ALK+ ALCLs with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK showed differences in gene expression, suggesting biological differences. Furthermore, ALCLs with non-ALK TK fusions shared gene expression features with ALK+ ALCL. Clinical fusion detection could enhance molecular classification of Type I and Type II ALCLs and may guide precision therapy.

Background: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is a need for guidelines and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The purpose of this expert consensus conference was to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of BIA-ALCL caused by textured implants. This article aims to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the management and prevention of BIA-ALCL. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, and supplemented by manual searches of relevant English-language articles and “related articles” sections. Studies focusing on breast surgery and lymphoma associated with breast implants were included for analysis. Meta-analyses were performed and reviewed by experts selected by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons using a Delphi consensus method. Results: A total of 840 articles published between January of 2011 and January of 2023 were initially identified and screened. The full text of 188 articles was assessed. An additional 43 articles were excluded for focus, and 145 articles were included in the synthesis of results, with 105 of them being case reports or case series. The analysis encompassed a comprehensive examination of the selected articles to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches, and treatment modalities related to BIA-ALCL. Conclusions: Plastic surgeons should be aware of the elevated risks by implant surface type, implement appropriate patient surveillance, and follow the recommendations outlined in this statement to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. Ongoing research on the pathogenesis, genetic drivers, and preventative and prophylactic measures for BIA-ALCL is crucial for improving patient care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, V.

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30-positive T-cell lymphomas that share pathologic features but differ in clinical presentation, outcome, and molecular features. The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) classify ALCLs by presence or absence of ALK rearrangements (R) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous [c], or breast implant-associated [BIA]). ICC, but not WHO, recognizes DUSP22-R as defining a new genetic subtype of ALK- ALCL. The classifications otherwise do not reflect additional molecular heterogeneity in genetics (e.g., TP63-R) or therapeutic vulnerabilities (e.g., JAK-STAT3 pathway activation). Methods: ALCLs (N=689) underwent expert consensus review (WHO/ICC) through the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). All cases also underwent genetic subtyping (ALK, DUSP22, TP63, and triple-negative [TN]) using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), as well as IHC for phospho-STAT3 Tyr705 (pSTAT3). RNAseq was performed and evaluable in 393 cases; the remaining cases had insufficient tissue, tumor content, RNA yield or quality, and/or sequencing data quality. Sequenced and non-sequenced sub-cohorts had similar demographics and subtype distribution. Results: Unsupervised gene expression profiling (GEP) identified 2 main molecular types of ALCL. Type I ALCLs predominantly included ALK+ ALCLs, BIA-ALCLs, and a subset of TN ALCLs (designated TN-I), whereas Type II ALCLs predominantly included ALCLs with DUSP22-R, TP63-R, or both (double-hit; DH), and the remaining TN ALCLs (TN-II). Type I ALCLs were strongly associated with pSTAT3 expression (74.2±26.4% positive malignant cells vs 9.9±22.7% for Type II; P<0.0001). An independently derived pSTAT3 staining threshold of 30% assigned Type I vs II with 91% accuracy. A third cluster of ALCLs, mostly cALCL, showed an epithelial GEP signature rather than a lymphoma signature; these cases were assigned to Types I or II based on pSTAT3 IHC. Distinct sub-signatures were identified for ALK+, DUSP22-R, TP63-R, and BIA ALCL (Fig. 1), but not ALK- ALCL or cALCL. Gene set enrichment analysis showed Type I ALCLs to be enriched for JAK-STAT3 signaling genes (normalized enrichment score [NES], 2.22; FDR<0.0001) and related pathways, such as TNFα-NFκB signaling (NES, 2.21; FDR<0.0001). In contrast, Type II ALCLs were enriched for cell cycle, DNA repair, epigenetic, and metabolic pathway genes, but not for major tyrosine kinase-mediated signaling pathway genes. Enriched epigenetic pathways included chromatin modifying enzymes (NES, -1.86; FDR=0.002) and histone methylation (NES, -1.71; FDR=0.002). EZH2 was the most overexpressed gene in Type II ALCLs (fold-change, 7.74; FDR=8.84×10 -306). At the protein level, EZH2 IHC H-scores were 275±45 in Type II and 168±70 in Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001); H3K27me3 H-scores were 170±81 and 76±63, respectively (P<0.001). The top metabolic gene set involved cholesterol biosynthesis (NES, -1.88; FDR=0.002). Overall survival (OS) data were available in 257 systemic ALCL patients (145 sequenced and 112 non-sequenced; cALCL and BIA-ALCL were excluded). Non-sequenced TN ALCLs were assigned to TN-I or TN-II using pSTAT3 IHC. The results supported earlier data indicating favorable prognosis of DUSP22-R ALCL (5 y OS, 95%) and ALK+ ALCL (87%), intermediate prognosis of TN ALCL (TN-I, 52% and TN-II, 38%; P=NS), and poor prognosis of TP63-R/DH ALCL (0%)(P<0.0001; Fig. 2). Conclusions: Two overarching molecular types of ALCL exist, predominantly associated with the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of the JAK-STAT3 signaling program. Distinct GEP signatures exist for ALK+ ALCL and BIA-ALCL (predominantly Type I), and DUSP22-R ALCL and TP63-R ALCL (predominantly Type II). TN ALCLs lacking ALK-R, DUSP22-R, and TP63-R can be stratified into TN-I and TN-II subtypes. pSTAT3 IHC has >90% accuracy as a surrogate for GEP-based subtyping. ALK- ALCL and cALCL cluster by molecular subtype rather than by defining GEP signatures. Type II ALCLs are enriched for targetable epigenetic and metabolic pathways, including EZH2/histone methylation and cholesterol biosynthesis. This molecular classification is diagnostically, prognostically, and potentially therapeutically relevant, and can be applied using FISH and IHC in routine practice and in the clinical trial setting.

Key Points An incidental histologic diagnosis of DLBCL was identified during temporary interruption of ibrutinib treatment in patients with CLL. In contrast to an aggressive clinical course typical of Richter transformation, these patients responded to reinitiation of ibrutinib alone.

AimsRearrangement of the platelet‐derived growth factor receptor B (PDGFRB) gene defines a unique group of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with frequent eosinophilia and high sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This genetic abnormality is also rarely reported in Philadelphia‐like B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia/lymphoma (B‐ALL). PDGFRB rearrangement was initially thought to only occur in cases with 5q31–33 rearrangement as determined with conventional cytogenetics; however, there are reported cases with cryptic rearrangements. We aim to develop a broader strategy for screening of PDGFRB rearrangements of patients with myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms.Methods and resultsWe performed fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation (FISH) for PDGFRB rearrangement in 197 patients, including 70 with B‐ALL, 10 with myeloid neoplasms with 5q31–33 rearrangements, and 117 with eosinophilia (≥0.5 × 109/l in peripheral blood or ≥5% in bone marrow), and identified PDGFRB rearrangement in four of 197 (2.0%) cases. In an attempt to identify clinicopathological and genetic features that may have a stronger association with PDGFRB rearrangement, we analysed 13 patients with confirmed PDGFRB rearrangements, including 10 with myeloid neoplasms and three with B‐ALL. Among the 10 patients with myeloid neoplasms, eosinophilia was present in eight, monocytosis in two, 5q31–33 rearrangement in seven, and abnormal bone marrow morphology in all. All patients with myeloid neoplasms showed an excellent response to imatinib, including a patient in blast crisis. The three B‐ALL patients presented de novo, showed no eosinophilia, had a complex karyotype including 5q31–33 rearrangement, and had clinically aggressive courses with ultimate patient demise.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that a higher yield for the identification of PDGFRB rearrangement may result from an index of suspicion in patients with eosinophilia, monocytosis, bone marrow features of a myeloid neoplasm, and 5q31–33 rearrangement, and patients with Philadelphia‐like B‐ALL.

PURPOSE To provide guidelines for the accurate pathologic diagnosis of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), the preoperative evaluation of the patient with suspected BIA-ALCL, and the pathologic evaluation of the capsulectomy specimen. METHODS To better inform patients and healthcare providers about BIA-ALCL, we convened to review diagnostic procedures used in the evaluation of patients with suspected BIA-ALCL. We focused on the processing of the seroma fluid/effusion surrounding the implant, the handling of capsulectomy specimens following removal of implant(s), and the preoperative evaluation of the patient with suspected BIA-ALCL. Recommendations were based on the published literature and our experience to optimize procedures to obtain an accurate diagnosis and assess for tumor invasion and the extent of the disease. RECOMMENDATIONS Early diagnosis of BIA-ALCL is important as the disease can progress and deaths have been reported. Because the most common presentation of BIA-ALCL is swelling of the breast with fluid collection, an accurate diagnosis requires cytologic evaluation of the effusion fluid surrounding the affected implant. The first priority is cytocentrifugation and filtration of fresh, unfixed effusion fluid to produce air-dried smears that are stained with Wright-Giemsa or other Romanowsky-type stains. Preparation of a cell block is desirable to allow for hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemical analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded histologic sections. Cell block sections can be used for polymerase chain reaction–based investigation of T-cell receptor gene rearrangement to detect clonality. Fixation and mapping of the capsulectomy specimen to select multiple representative sections are advised to assess for microscopic tumor involvement and capsular invasion. It is appropriate to assess lymph node involvement by excisional biopsy material rather than fine needle aspiration, due to propensity for focal involvement.

Abstract Context and objective Approximately 5-10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients carry MYC gene translocations (MYC-translocation+) with a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients carrying BCL2 translocations (MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma) have a worse survival. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy as a part of the therapeutic regimen for patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL. Patients and methods From the International DLBCL R-CHOP consortium program, we selected 581 patients with de novo DLBCL treated with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (diagnosed and treated from 2000 to 2010). We excluded patients with transformed DLBCL, primary mediastinal, cutaneous, testicular or central nervous system large B-cell lymphomas, patients with HIV infection, and patients not treated with R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 54.9 months. Fluorescence in situ hybridization assessing MYC was performed for all the patients (n=581) and results were correlated with available clinical data to identify clinicopathologic features associated with MYC translocation, and to evaluate the prognostic significance of MYC translocations regarding overall survival (OS, from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (PFS, from the time of diagnosis to relapse or death from any cause). In the MYC-translocation+ DLBCL group, 38 patients received chemotherapy alone and 21 patients received chemotherapy with adjuvant radiation therapy. The clinicopathologic features and survival of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients treated with (n=21) and without radiotherapy (n=38) after immunochemotherapy were compared to in order to evaluate the radiotherapy efficacy and other confounding factors. Results MYC translocations were detected in 59 DLBCL patients (10.2%). Patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL more often had bulky tumors, involvement of multiple extranodal sites, and poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 - 3.35, P= .0083) and PFS (HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.13, P= .0005) independent of the International Prognostic Index score. Poor survival was primarily attributable to patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit DLBCL who were predominantly of germinal center B-cell subtype. Among MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, a better survival was achieved in patients who received radiotherapy (for OS, HR: .32, 95% CI: .15 - .71, P= .0049; for PFS, HR: .35, 95% CI: .17 - .73, P= .0043). Conversely, radiotherapy abolished the adverse impact of MYC translocations. In addition, radiotherapy was associated with better survival in the subset of patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma (P = .017 for OS, and P = .05 for PFS). However, owing to the common use of radiotherapy as consolidation therapy, the favorable prognoses in the group of patients who received radiotherapy could also be attributed to limited-stage disease and more frequent complete remission (CR) after first-line treatment and therefore these factors confound interpretation of the data. To address these issues, we evaluated radiotherapy efficacy in separate patient groups: patients who achieved CR, non-CR (PR/SD/PD) patients, and patient with stage I/II, or stage III/IV disease. The efficacy of radiotherapy appeared more apparent in patients with advanced disease who did not achieve CR after first-line chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for stage and IPI score validated that radiotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: .28, 95% CI: .10 - .81, P= .018) and PFS (HR: .32, 95% CI: .13 - .80, P= .015) of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Conclusions The presence of MYC translocations in DLBCL is an important biomarker that facilitates prognostic prediction and treatment stratification independent of the IPI score. For chemoresistant MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, radiotherapy seems to be an effective adjuvant regimen likely due to the higher frequency of extranodal involvement and bulky disease in MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Our results provide a rationale for larger scale studies to assess the potential role of radiotherapy in the management of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, particularly patients with MYC+/BCL2+double-hit DLBCL. Disclosures: Winter: Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis : Research Funding; Pfizer (Wyeth): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Janssen (Pharmacyclics): Research Funding; Spectrum (Allos): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Tgen: Consultancy; AMBIT Biosciences (Spouse): Research Funding; Celgene (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Spouse): Research Funding; Novartis (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas (Spouse): Research Funding; Caremark/CVS: Consultancy; Pfizer (Spouse): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; Bristol Myers Squibb (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; UptoDate, Inc.(Spouse): Patents & Royalties.