Citations

Abstract Introduction: Clinical staging of multifocal non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is facilitated by comparative genomic analysis of separate tumor nodules, but the role of genome-wide copy number profiling for this purpose is uncertain. Methods: We analyzed single nucleotide variants (SNVs), gene fusions, small copy number variants (gene amplifications and homozygous deletions) (sCNVs), and large-scale copy number variants (lCNVs) in a retrospective cohort of 34 patients with >1 lung cancer nodule tested on a previously validated tumor-only 515-gene next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (MayoComplete Solid Tumor Panel). For patients with <2 shared SNVs, a Bayesian approach was formulated to calculate the probability of shared versus independent events occurring in different tumor nodules in the same patient. The prevalence of specific lCNVs in NSCLC was derived from an independent dataset of 100 NSCLC peers tested by the same panel, and the prevalence of SNVs, fusions, and sCNVs in NSCLC was derived from publicly available data. Alterations unique to different tumor nodules and suspected germline alterations were excluded from the Bayesian analysis. Results: There were 54 total comparisons for 34 patients. Eleven of the patients (32.4%) had >=2 shared SNVs along with one or more shared lCNVs also identified in each patient. Eight patients (23.5%) had no shared SNVs, gene fusions, sCNVs, or lCNVs. Using the Bayesian approach for the remaining fifteen (44.1%) patients with at least one shared alteration (SNVs, sCNVs, and lCNVs), the probability of clonal relatedness ranged from 73% for a shared whole arm or whole chromosome lCNV to >99% for tumors with two or more shared alterations including multiple or complex lCNVs and SNVs. Whole chromosome or whole arm lCNVs were sometimes shared between tumor nodules with different driver SNVs. Conclusions: Incorporating lCNVs into comparative genomic analysis provides additional evidence of clonal relatedness in a subset of multifocal NSCLCs. However, differences in bioinformatics pipelines for calling lCNVs, concerns over the imprecision of genome-wide copy number profiling, and uncertainty regarding the temporal relationship between lCNVs and carcinogenesis (including somatic events possibly related to “field cancerization”) create challenges for integrating lCNVs into comparative genomic analysis with standard clinical workflows for tumor-only NGS on paraffin embedded tissue sections. Our simplified approach mitigates some of the uncertainty introduced by incorporating lCNVs into clonality determination. Citation Format: Claire Teigen, Ying-Chun Lo, Sounak Gupta, Stephanie Smoley, Beth Pitel, Hussam Al Kateb, Gopi Sivasankaran, Benjamin Kipp, Ande Rumilla, Gang Zheng, Kevin Halling, Katherine Geiersbach, . A Bayesian framework for evaluating somatic copy number variants into comparative genomic analysis of multifocal non-small cell lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 5423.

Abstract Diffuse hemispheric glioma, H3 G34‐mutant (DHG‐H3 G34) has been primarily molecularly characterized by methylation profiling and sequencing studies. We describe an integrated histomolecular evaluation including high‐resolution copy number profiling of a series of 60 DHG‐H3 G34 to further our understanding of the spectrum of genetic changes associated with this tumor type. Cases were clinically tested using an 187‐gene mutation and fusion targeted neuro‐oncology next‐generation sequencing panel ( n = 60) and Oncoscan chromosomal microarray ( n = 26) by a single laboratory (2018–2022). A subset of cases had immunohistochemical results for OLIG2 ( n = 42), p53 ( n = 48), and ATRX ( n = 46), and methylation array data ( n = 8). Median age at testing was 21 years (range, 12–50). No significant difference was noted in clinical, histopathological, and mutational profile between pediatric and adult patients. H3‐3A G34 mutations included G34R ( n = 56; 94%), G34V ( n = 3), and a non‐canonical G34E ( n = 1). Concurrent mutations most often involved TP53 ( n = 55; 92%), ATRX ( n = 50; 83%), and PDGFRA ( n = 34; 57%). A reportedly primary tumor was confirmed to be hypermutant and had a PMS2 mutation. A single case also showed an FGFR3::FAM184B fusion. All cases with available chromosomal microarray data had unbalanced genomes, which were often complex (14/26; 54%). The most frequent recurrent copy number abnormalities were losses involving 3q, 4q, 10q, 13q, and 18q, and 17p copy‐neutral loss of heterozygosity (cnLOH) encompassing TP53 . This copy number profile was reminiscent of that seen in Grade 4 IDH‐mutant astrocytomas. Collectively, a TP53 abnormality at copy number (12/26, all cnLOH), sequence (55/60) and protein expression (46/48) level was detected in all 60 cases. In conclusion, integrated high‐resolution copy number and histomolecular analysis expanded the spectrum of genetic changes associated with DHG‐H3 G34, including the presence of universal TP53 abnormalities with frequent cnLOH—a copy number abnormality that has been largely unrecognized—for this new 2021 World Health Organization central nervous system tumor type.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing is a minimally invasive alternative to tissue biopsy and is ideal for inaccessible tumors or limited samples. It captures tumor heterogeneity over time and different anatomic locations, unlike the static snapshot provided by a biopsy. In this report, we describe a 68-year-old female with an initial diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (a pancreas head mass with multiple bilateral lung nodules). Mutation profiling of the pancreatic mass biopsy using a comprehensive cancer next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel was unsuccessful due to insufficient tissue. Consequently, ctDNA testing using a pan-cancer NGS panel was performed, and an EGFR p.L858R variant at 2.15% was identified. Interestingly, this activating variant is highly specific to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which raised the possibility of a synchronous tumor unrelated to the pancreatic mass. Immunohistochemistry showed the EGFR variant in station 7 lymph nodes but not in pancreatic biopsy tissue, supporting the inference that the variant originated from the lung mass. Droplet digital PCR on the limited pancreatic biopsy identified a KRAS p.Q61 variant, which was absent by ctDNA testing, suggesting a pancreatic primary with low ctDNA levels. In addition to diagnosing a primary lung cancer, ctDNA testing guided treatment decisions. With a primary EGFR p.L858R–mutant NSCLC, osimertinib was administered, resulting in a partial response within 10 months. In addition, given the synchronous primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma, germline testing was performed, revealing a CDKN2A p.I49T variant consistent with melanoma-pancreatic cancer syndrome, prompting comprehensive cancer surveillance and familial testing. This case illustrates how ctDNA testing enabled a comprehensive evaluation by clarifying the diagnosis, identifying actionable biomarkers, and facilitating genetic risk assessment, ultimately having a significant impact on the patient’s clinical management.

AbstractHistiocytoid Sweet syndrome (H‐SS) is a histopathological variant of Sweet syndrome (SS) defined by cutaneous infiltration of immature myeloid cells morphologically resembling histiocytes. The association of H‐SS with underlying malignancy, particularly myelodysplastic syndromes, is well‐established. Myelodysplasia cutis (MDS‐cutis) has been proposed to describe cases historically diagnosed as H‐SS but characterized by shared clonality of the myeloid infiltrate in skin and bone marrow. Therefore, identifying patients who might have MDS‐cutis is critical for the management of the associated hematologic malignancy. VEXAS syndrome, an adult‐onset autoinflammatory disease, should also be included in the histopathologic differential diagnosis of H‐SS, as it shares clinical and pathologic features with MDS‐cutis. Through the presentation of two cases, we aim to highlight the defining features and key clinical implications of MDS‐cutis and VEXAS syndrome.

Abstract VEXAS (vacuoles, E1-ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome is a recently described autoinflammatory disorder caused by acquired UBA1 mutations in hematopoietic precursor cells. The prevalence, clinical significance, and genomic landscape of UBA1variants in patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) remains unexplored. We analyzed the genomic profiles of 86 patients carrying 17 different UBA1variants amongst an unbiased cohort of 8,976 HM patients. Specific genetic and clinical features seen more frequently in patients with UBA1 pathogenic variants (PV) versus those with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) included: marked male predominance (98% versus 80%, P=0.002), macrocytic anemia (MCV 105 ± 1.4 fl versus 96 ± 1.4 fl, p=0.01), frequent dominant clones without concurrent somatic variants (53% versus 15%, p=0.004), and association with molecularly distinct low-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; 13%) with superior overall survival (OS). Interestingly, while the genetic profiles of UBA1 PV patients resemble patients with clonal cytopenia of unknown significance (CCUS), rapid UBA1 clonal expansion predispose patients to convert to low-grade MDS with a notably hastened progression compared to UBA1 wild-type CCUS. This “clone surge to clinical stability” (CS) is a mechanism that emphasizes the unique pathobiology of UBA1mutations in VEXAS and supports it as a distinct entity.

A 74-year-old male presented with rectal pain; workup uncovered an anal mass, and a diagnosis of melanoma was rendered via histologic examination and immunohistochemical (IHC) studies. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)–based BRAF testing was performed and revealed the presence of BRAF V600E, which is a common targetable genetic alteration in melanoma. Interestingly, the ratio of mutant to wild-type copy number was low (0.3%), whereas tumor cell percentage on tissue slides was 90%. With additional workup, BRAF V600E IHC confirmed a very small subset of BRAF V600E–positive cells, and a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel revealed a pathogenic KIT variant, p.L576P, with an allele frequency of 63%. It was initially hypothesized that the main driver of the melanoma was the KIT alteration, whereas a small subclone (not detected by NGS, which has a 5% limit of detection) was driven by the BRAF V600E detected by ddPCR. To determine whether there were morphologic differences between the 2 clones, a careful review of the histology was performed and revealed distinct morphology of the BRAF V600E–positive cells, including pale cytoplasm, nuclear grooves, and infiltrating eosinophils. Additional IHC workup of the BRAF V600E–positive cells showed coexpression of CD1a, Langerin, and S100, diagnostic of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). This diagnosis was unexpected and would have been missed without highly sensitive molecular testing; yet it is of clinical importance for the patient. This case raises interesting biology questions regarding the relationship between melanoma and LCH; moreover, it highlights the importance of integrating quantitative information in molecular data interpretation.

Purpose of review There have been major advances in our understanding of molecular pathogenesis of myeloid neoplasms, which prompt the updates in the classification of myeloid neoplasms in the fifth edition of World Health Organization Classification (WHO-5) and the new International Consensus Classification (ICC). The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of these two classification systems for myeloid neoplasms. Recent findings The definition, classification, and diagnostic criteria in many myeloid entities have been refined in WHO-5 and ICC with improved understanding of morphology and integration of new genetic findings. Particularly, molecular and cytogenetic studies have been increasingly incorporated into the classification, risk stratification, and selection of therapy of myeloid neoplasms. Overall, despite some revisions and discrepancies between WHO-5 and ICC, the major categories of myeloid neoplasms remain the same. Further validation studies are warranted to fine-tune and, ideally, integrate these two classifications. Summary Integration of clinical information, laboratory parameters, morphologic features, and cytogenetic and molecular studies is essential for the classification of myeloid neoplasms, as recommended by both WHO-5 and ICC.