Cavity-based lymphomas: challenges and novel concepts. A report of the 2022 EA4HP/SH lymphoma workshop

The 2022 European Association for Haematopathology/Society for Hematopathology lymphoma workshop session on cavity-based lymphomas included sixty-eight cases in seven sections. The disease entities discussed include primary effusion lymphomas (PEL), extracavitary primary effusion lymphomas and confounding entities (ECPEL), HHV8-negative B-lineage lymphomas-effusion based (EBV-negative, EBV-positive, and plasmablastic types), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma associated with chronic inflammation, fibrin-associated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (FA-DLBCL), breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and other lymphomas presenting as an effusion. All entities above are discussed; however, three are delved into greater detail given the challenges with classification: ECPEL, HHV8-negative effusion-based lymphomas, and FA-DLBCL. Cases exemplifying the diagnostic difficulty in differentiating ECPEL from HHV8-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and germinotropic lymphoproliferative disorder were discussed. The more recently recognized effusion-based HHV8-negative large B-cell lymphoma is explored, with several cases submitted raising the question if this subset should be carved out as a specific entity, and if so, what should be the refining diagnostic criteria. Case submissions to the FA-DLBCL section yielded one of the largest case series to date, including classic cases, cases furthering the discussion on disease sites and prognosis, as well as novel concepts to be considered in this entity. The 2022 EA4HP/SH workshop cases allowed for further confirmation of the characteristics of some of the more historically accepted cavity-based lymphomas, as well as further inquiry and debate on relatively new or evolving entities

Correction to. Cavity-based lymphomas: challenges and novel concepts. A report of the 2022 EA4HP/SH lymphoma workshop

The article title of the original published version of the above article was incomplete. The correct title is shown as follows: “Cavity‐based lymphomas: challenges and novel concepts. A report of the 2022 EA4HP/SH lymphoma workshop” The original article has been correcte

Secondary cytogenetic abnormalities in core-binding factor AML harboring inv(16) vs t(8;21)

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, similar to 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)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21) Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I-CBFit)

Background: Although 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. Methods: Eleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21) (q22;q22). Results: Complete 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 diseasefree (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). Conclusions: I-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 score)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21): Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I-CBFit).

BackgroundAlthough 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 &lt; 0.0001). Low- vs high-risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P &lt; 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)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16): Older age and high white blood cell count are risk factors for treatment failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166221/1/ijlh13338.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166221/2/ijlh13338_am.pd