Peterson, Jess F.

Context.— One objective of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and clinical interpretation of abnormalities observed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis when evaluating hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (2005–2024) of FISH challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 2005 through 2024 to identify FISH challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was evaluated to identify potential recurring errors of clinical relevance. Results.— A total of 124 hematologic neoplasm FISH challenges from 2005 to 2024 were provided to participating laboratories, including 45 paper challenges (results and/or images were provided for interpretation purposes), 43 liquid challenges (bone marrow aspirate or peripheral blood), and 36 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue challenges. Of the 124 challenges, 120 (97%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading purposes. Of the 4 failed challenges (3%), 2 (1 liquid, 1 paper) involved the interpretation of atypical FISH signal patterns; 1 (paper) involved the interpretation of FISH signal patterns correlating involvement by myeloid versus lymphoid interphase nuclei; and 1 (liquid) likely involved a specimen processing or handling error that resulted in discordant participant responses. All 36 FFPE tissue challenges exceeded the 80% consensus for grading purposes. Conclusions.— This 20-year retrospective review demonstrates that clinical cytogenomic laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and interpretation of FISH abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.

Context.— Optical genome mapping (OGM) represents a promising cytogenomic technology that detects structural variants, including fusions, rearrangements, copy number variants, and loss of heterozygosity, in a single assay. Unlike karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or chromosomal microarray, OGM leverages long-molecule imaging to map the whole genome with high resolution. This positions OGM as a novel tool for constitutional and somatic/cancer genomics. However, its current and planned utilization in clinical and research settings remains unknown, necessitating further investigation. Objective.— To investigate the current utilization of OGM in clinical and research laboratories, assess its applications, and evaluate future utilization strategies. Design.— In 2024, a supplemental questionnaire was incorporated into 6 College of American Pathologists proficiency testing programs to evaluate OGM’s utilization. Results.— Of 921 returned questionnaires, 712 were analyzed after duplicates were removed. Sixty-seven (9.4%) currently offered OGM testing: 5.2% (37) for research only, 1.8% (13) for only clinical use, and 2.4% (17) for both. Future adoption plans showed 7.6% (53 of 700 laboratories) and 7.9% (55 of 700 laboratories) aiming to implement OGM clinically within 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common applications included hematologic malignancies and constitutional/germline postnatal disorders, followed by prenatal testing. International laboratories demonstrated statistically higher utilization rates than domestic laboratories ( P = .001). Conclusions.— This first survey on OGM clinical utilization reveals its status as a niche technology, with 67 laboratories currently using it. Its primary clinical applications are in constitutional/germline analysis and hematologic malignancies. Although international laboratories led in 2024, 108 laboratories (domestic and international) plan clinical adoption within 24 months, signaling OGM’s potential for broader integration.

Background: The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure the competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetic testing laboratories through proficiency testing (PT) programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of cytogenetic abnormalities in solid tumors. Methods: Review and analyze 25 years (1999–2023) of solid tumor chromosome analysis PT results, utilizing G-banded karyograms. A retrospective review of results from 1999 to 2023 was performed, identifying the challenges addressing solid tumors. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results: A total of 21 solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 1999–2018. No solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 2019–2023. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for the evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. All 21 cases reached 80% grading consensus for abnormality recognition. However, five cases (24%) failed to reach consensus for nomenclature reporting by participating laboratories. These cases illustrate errors in reporting chromosomal abnormalities, including whole-arm translocations and those involving sex chromosomes. In addition, they highlight the challenges with differentiation of terminal and interstitial deletions, difficulties in identifying correct breakpoints, and omission of brackets in neoplastic cases. Conclusions: This comprehensive 25-year review demonstrates the exceptional proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in accurately identifying chromosome abnormalities in solid tumors, while also highlighting the challenges of reporting specific types of chromosomal abnormalities.

Context.— The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetics testing laboratories through proficiency testing programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of constitutional abnormalities. Objective.— To review and analyze 20 years of constitutional chromosome analysis proficiency testing results (2003–2022), primarily utilizing G-banded karyograms. Design.— A retrospective review of results from 2003 through 2022 was performed, identifying challenges addressing constitutional disorders. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results.— A total of 184 cases from 161 proficiency testing challenges were administered from 2003 through 2022. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. Of the 184 cases, only 2 (1%) failed to reach an 80% grading consensus for recognition of the abnormality. Both cases illustrated the limitations of correctly characterizing some chromosomal abnormalities, including recombinant chromosomal abnormalities and isochromosome identification. In addition, 2 cases failed to reach a consensus for nomenclature reporting: 1 with an isochromosome and another with a duplication. Conclusions.— This 20-year review illustrates the high rate of competency and proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in the correct identification of constitutional chromosome abnormalities.

Abstract Several reports of concurrent MYC, BCL2, BCL6, and CCND1 rearrangements in high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) have been recently described. Herein, we aimed to delineate the scope of this entity through a review of HGBL with a “quadruple-hit” genetic profile identified at our institution. We performed a retrospective review (2015-2023) at our institution of B-cell lymphoma (BCL) cases that were evaluated with concurrent MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 break-apart and IGH::MYC and IGH::CCND1 dual-color dual-fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization studies. Of 203 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 2 (1%) with a quadruple-hit genetic profile were identified. Case 1 represented a 59-year-old female with widespread lymphadenopathy and a diagnosis of HGBL who exhibited primary refractoriness to dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) chemotherapy. Case 2 represented a 58-year-old male with mediastinal and abdominal lymphadenopathy and a diagnosis of large BCL who died from disease after 1 cycle of DA-EPOCH-R chemotherapy. Similarly, a literature review of 7 previously reported cases of HGBL with a quadruple-hit profile also demonstrated aggressive disease behavior. Our study adds 2 new cases to the rarely encountered quadruple-hit HGBL, and a brief meta-analysis of the 9 available cases indicates aggressive disease behavior conferred by this constellation of genetic events.

Abstract Objectives VEXAS syndrome is an adult-onset autoinflammatory disease caused by a somatic pathogenic mutation in the UBA1 (ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1) gene. Patients present with rheumatologic manifestations and cytopenias and may have an increased predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and plasma cell neoplasms. Prior studies have reported on the peripheral blood and bone marrow findings in patients with VEXAS syndrome. Due to the protean clinical presentation and lack of specificity of morphologic features (eg, vacuoles in early erythroid and granulocytic precursors), an optimal screening methodology to identify these patients in a timely fashion is desirable. Methods To further evaluate and describe the salient diagnostic morphologic features in VEXAS syndrome, we carried out a comprehensive study of the largest single-institution cohort to date. Diagnostic and follow-up bone marrow biopsy specimens from 52 male patients with molecularly identified VEXAS syndrome underwent central review. Results Cytopenias were common in all cases, primarily macrocytic anemia, monocytopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy were often hypercellular, with an increased myeloid/erythroid ratio, granulocytic hyperplasia with left shift, erythroid left shift, and megakaryocyte hyperplasia, which exhibited a range of striking morphologic findings. Distinctly vacuolated myeloid and erythroid precursors were seen in more than 95% of cases. Conclusions Our data reveal potential novel diagnostic features, such as a high incidence of monocytopenia and distinct patterns of atypical megakaryopoiesis, that appear different from dysmegakaryopoiesis typically associated with MDS. In our experience, those findings are suggestive of VEXAS, in the appropriate clinical context.

Abstract Objectives Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

The MN1::ETV6 gene fusion resulting from t(12;22)(p13;q12) has been rarely reported in myeloid neoplasms. We describe a 69-year-old male with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with erythroid differentiation and t(12;22)(p13;q12) demonstrated by conventional chromosome studies. Subsequent fluorescence in situ hybridization studies demonstrated a balanced ETV6 gene rearrangement (at 12p13). To further characterize this translocation, whole-genome sequencing was performed which confirmed t(12;22) with breakpoints involving the MN1 and ETV6 genes. Herein, we describe our case and review the literature to summarize the clinical and laboratory findings in patients with this rare but recurrent MN1::ETV6 gene fusion observed in myeloid neoplasms. Importantly, this case expands the clinical spectrum associated with the MN1::ETV6 gene fusion to include AML with erythroid differentiation. Lastly, this case demonstrates the importance of moving toward more comprehensive molecular testing to fully characterize the driver events in neoplastic genomes.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.