Citations

Abstract Eosinophilia and eosinophil activation are recurrent features in various reactive states and certain hematologic malignancies. In patients with hypereosinophilia (HE), HE‐induced organ damage is often encountered and may lead to the diagnosis of a hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A number of known mechanisms and etiologies contribute to the development of HE and HES. Based on these etiologies and the origin of eosinophils, HE and HES are divided into primary forms where eosinophils are clonal cells, reactive forms where an underlying reactive or neoplastic condition is detected and eosinophils are considered to be “non‐clonal” cells, and idiopathic HE and HES in which neither a clonal nor a reactive underlying pathology is detected. Since 2012, this classification and the related criteria have been widely accepted and regarded as standard. However, during the past few years, new developments in the field and an increasing number of markers and targets have created a need to update these criteria and the classification of HE and HES. To address this challenge, a Working Conference on eosinophil disorders was organized in 2021. In this conference, a panel of experts representing the relevant fields, including allergy, dermatology, hematology, immunology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, met and discussed new markers and concepts as well as refinements in definitions, criteria and classifications of HE and HES. The outcomes of this conference are presented in this article and should assist in the diagnosis and management of patients with HE and HES in daily practice and in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials.

Mastocytosis is a hematologic neoplasm characterized by expansion and focal accumulation of neoplastic mast cells (MC) in diverse organs, including the skin, bone marrow (BM), spleen, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. The World Health Organization classification divides the disease into prognostically distinct variants of cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Although this classification remains valid, recent developments in the field and the advent of new diagnostic and prognostic parameters created a need to update and refine definitions and diagnostic criteria in MC neoplasms. In addition, MC activation syndromes (MCAS) and genetic features predisposing to SM and MCAS have been identified. To discuss these developments and refinements in the classification, we organized a Working Conference comprised of experts from Europe and the United States in August 2020. This article reports on outcomes from this conference. Of particular note, we propose adjustments in the classification of CM and SM, refinements in diagnostic criteria of SM variants, including smoldering SM and BM mastocytosis (BMM), and updated criteria for MCAS and other conditions involving MC. CD30 expression in MC now qualifies as a minor SM criterion, and BMM is now defined by SM criteria, absence of skin lesions and absence of B- and C-findings. A basal serum tryptase level exceeding 20 ng/mL remains a minor SM criterion, with recognition that hereditary alpha-tryptasemia and various myeloid neoplasms may also cause elevations in tryptase. Our updated proposal will support diagnostic evaluations and prognostication in daily practice and the conduct of clinical trials in MC disorders.

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).