Predictors of clinical outcome in myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable: A Bone Marrow Pathology Group study.

OBJECTIVES: Myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable (MPN-U, revised to MPN, not otherwise specified in the fifth edition of the World Health Organization classification) is a heterogeneous category of primary marrow disorders with clinical, morphologic, and/or molecular features that preclude classification as a more specific MPN subtype due to stage at diagnosis, overlapping features between MPN subtypes, or the presence of coexisting disorders. Compared with other MPN subtypes, the contribution of the mutational landscape in MPN-U in conjunction with other clinical and morphologic biomarkers to prognosis has been less well investigated. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of MPN-U (94 cases) to better define the clinicopathologic features, genetic landscape, and clinical outcomes, including subgroups of early-stage, advanced-stage, and coexisting disorders. The Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) plus scoring system was applied to assess its relevance to MPN-U prognosis. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis demonstrated bone marrow blast count and DIPSS plus score as statistically significant in predicting overall survival. Univariate analysis identified additional potential poor prognostic markers, including abnormal karyotype and absence of JAK2 mutation. Secondary mutations were frequent in the subset analyzed by next-generation sequencing (26/37 cases, 70.3%) with a borderline association between high molecular risk mutations and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study, as one of the largest of MPN-U studies incorporating both clinicopathologic and molecular data, moves toward identification of biomarkers that better predict prognosis in this heterogeneous category.

Poly-lymphomatous Syndrome With Concurrent or Sequential Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: The development of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) concurrently or sequentially in the same patient is a rare clinical scenario and can be labeled as a poly-lymphomatous syndrome (PLS). METHODS: We report clinico-pathologic characteristics and survival outcomes of 7 such cases from our institution. In concurrent PLS, HL is present with NHL in the same location (composite PLS) or in separate locations (discordant PLS). Sequential presentations were seen with HL following NHL or vice versa (sequential PLS). CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to perform adequate biopsies in supposedly relapsed or refractory settings to diagnose PLS. We suggest that the incidence of PLS is likely underestimated due to the under-utilization of repeat biopsies. In patients with concurrent PLS, the treatment should ideally cover both types of lymphoma with an emphasis on tailoring the treatment towards the more aggressive lymphoma. In patients with sequential PLS, the treatment should target the new lymphoma. Consolidation treatments such as autologous hematopoietic cell transplant should be considered when there is a component of relapsed cHL or aggressive NHL. Based on our experience, PLS does not appear to be associated with a poor prognosis. Further research is necessary for better understanding of the biology and management of PLS.