Gru, Alejandro A.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPrimary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) are indolent CD30‐positive lymphoproliferative disorders that rarely express TCR‐γδ. However, primary cutaneous gamma‐delta T‐cell lymphoma (pcGDTCL), characterized by TCR‐γδ expression on neoplastic cells, is a rare, aggressive cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Accurate differentiation is essential due to distinct clinical behavior and treatment.MethodsWe identified 11 TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL cases from internal and consultation files, verified by two cutaneous lymphoma experts, with clinicopathologic data recorded.ResultsThe median age was 68 years (range 38–95). Most cases presented as a single dermal lesion on the upper extremities. All were ALK‐negative, CD30‐positive (> 90% tumor cells), TCR‐βF1‐negative, and diffusely TCR‐γδ‐positive. CD4−/CD8− (54.5%) and CD4+/CD8− (45.5%) immunophenotypes were observed. CD2 (63.6%) and CD3 (54.5%) were the most common T‐cell antigens. Ulceration, inflammation (both 45.5%), and necrosis (36.4%) were frequent. Angiotropism, angiocentricity, and myxoid stroma appeared in one case; epidermotropism in two. Four of ten tested were DUSP22‐rearranged, and TP63 was negative in all eight tested.ConclusionsMost ALK‐negative TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL were CD4−/CD8−, followed by CD4+/CD8−. DUSP22 rearrangement occurred in 40% of cases, similar to reports in typical pcALCL. Its prognosis and the role of DUSP22 are yet to be clarified.

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.

A subset of desmoplastic melanomas (DMs) can show extensive morphologic and immunohistochemical overlap with cutaneous diffuse-type neurofibroma. Neurofibroma-like desmoplastic melanoma (NFLDM) thus poses a significant diagnostic pitfall because the clinical implications of these 2 entities differ dramatically. A series of 17 DMs, including 5 cases of NFLDM, were compared with a cohort of 53 cutaneous diffuse-type neurofibromas to explore the utility of molecular testing in the differential diagnosis between NFLDM and neurofibroma and to determine potentially useful morphologic features in this differential diagnosis. Unlike NFLDM, cutaneous diffuse-type neurofibromas: (1) rarely feature intratumoral or peritumoral lymphoid aggregates, (2) consistently harbor an intrinsic stromal support vasculature composed of evenly spaced capillary-sized vessels, and (3) infiltrate adjacent adipose tissue in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans–like manner with a complete lack of chronic inflammation or fat necrosis at the leading edge of the tumor. Conversely, DMs, including NFLDM: (1) do not contain Wagner-Meissner bodies, (2) often induce fat necrosis and/or chronic inflammation at the interface with adjacent fibroadipose tissue, (3) lack the intrinsic capillary-sized stromal vasculature observed in most neurofibromas, and (4) may harbor foci of perineuriomatous differentiation, mimicking a hybrid nerve sheath tumor. Any deviation from the expected clinical or morphologic features of cutaneous diffuse-type neurofibroma should raise suspicion for NFLDM. Although not entirely sensitive or specific, molecular testing can help to support the diagnosis of NFLDM by demonstrating genetic abnormalities associated with melanoma, including a UV-light–induced mutational signature, high tumor mutational burden, and/or chromosomal copy number alterations typical of melanoma.

Lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has several histopathologic presentations. LyP featuring gamma-delta (γδ) T-cell receptor expression may masquerade as and may be misdiagnosed as aggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, particularly primary cutaneous γδ T-cell lymphoma (PCGDTL) or γδ mycosis fungoides. We performed a clinicopathologic analysis of the largest series of LyP featuring γδ T-cell expression. We identified 26 patients with a diagnosis of LyP with γδ T cells from our institutions, as well as through a comprehensive review of the literature, and characterized these cases. Most cases were treated with topical steroids or not treated at all. The majority of cases showed a CD4-CD8+ phenotype and featured at least one cytotoxic marker. Histopathologic features included an intraepidermal or dermal infiltrate with large cells and frequent angiotropism. One case was initially misdiagnosed as PCGDTL, requiring further therapy. Our case series, the largest international cohort of γδ T cell predominant LyP cases, confirms marked clinicopathologic heterogeneity that may contribute to misdiagnosis, reasserting the need to identify classic clinical features, CD30+ T-cell components, and markers of cytotoxicity when dealing with this differential diagnosis. A limitation of this study includes somewhat limited follow-up, histologic, and immunophenotypic information for some cases.

Abstract The number of patients with primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL) relative to other non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) is small and the number of subtypes large. Although clinical trial guidelines have been published for mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome, the most common type of PCL, none exist for the other PCLs. In addition, staging of the PCLs has been evolving based on new data on potential prognostic factors, diagnosis, and assessment methods of both skin and extracutaneous disease and a desire to align the latter with the Lugano guidelines for all NHLs. The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL), the United States Cutaneous LymphomaConsortium (USCLC), and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) now propose updated staging and guidelines for the study design, assessment, endpoints, and response criteria in clinical trials for all the PCLs in alignment with that of the Lugano guidelines. These recommendations provide standardized methodology that should facilitate planning and regulatory approval of new treatments for these lymphomas worldwide, encourage cooperative investigator-initiated trials, and help to assess the comparative efficacy of therapeutic agents tested across sites and studies.

This pathology PILOT study aims to define the role and feasibility of centralized pathology review in a cohort of 75 patients from different centers in the United States and Europe using digital slide scanning. The pathologic material from 75 patients who had been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome and were clinically staged as IIb or above was retrieved from 11 participating centers. Each pathology reviewer was provided with the pathologic diagnosis (by the referring pathologist), and the following list of histopathologic criteria (presence or absence) from the initial report: epidermotropism, folliculotropism (FT), large cell transformation, syringotropism, and granulomas. Patients with advance stage were selected for this study as this is a population where there is significant variability in the diagnosis of pathologic prognostic and predictive biomarkers. The slides were digitally scanned with an Aperio scanner and consensus review of cases occurred when major or minor discrepancies between the referral diagnosis and central pathology review occurred. Among the 75 cases, 70 (93.3%) had a final consensus diagnosis between the 3 central review pathologists. The overall agreement between the consensus review and the referring pathologist was 60%. The overall agreement was also higher between the reviewers and consensus review, compared with the referring pathologist and consensus. 65.3% of cases had some type of discrepancy (major or minor) between the outside and consensus review. Major discrepancies were seen in 34 of 73 cases (46.6%; 73 cases indicated a yes or no response). Minor discrepancies were seen in 32 of 75 (42.7%) of cases. Most of the major discrepancies were accounted by a difference in interpretation in the presence or absence of large cell transformation or FT. Most minor discrepancies were explained by a different interpretation in the expression of CD30. We found digital slide scanning to be a beneficial, reliable, and practical for a methodical approach to perform central pathology review in the context of a large clinical prospective study.