This study aimed to assess hematological diseases next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel enhances the diagnosis and classification of myeloid neoplasms (MN) using the 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of Myeloid Tumors. A cohort of 112 patients diagnosed with MN according to the revised fourth edition of the WHO classification (WHO-HAEM4R) underwent testing with a 141-gene NGS panel for hematological diseases. Ancillary studies were also conducted, including bone marrow cytomorphology and routine cytogenetics. The cases were then reclassified according to WHO-HAEM5 and ICC to assess the practical impact of these 2 classifications. The mutation detection rates were 93% for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 89% for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), 94% for myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), and 100% for myelodysplasia/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MDS/MPN) (WHO-HAEM4R). NGS provided subclassified information for 26 and 29 patients with WHO-HAEM5 and ICC, respectively. In MPN, NGS confirmed diagnoses in 16 cases by detecting JAK2, MPL, or CALR mutations, whereas 13 \"triple-negative\" MPN cases revealed at least 1 mutation. NGS panel testing for hematological diseases improves the diagnosis and classification of MN. When diagnosed with ICC, NGS produces more classification subtype information than WHO-HAEM5.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of an inherited predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and AML has important clinical implications for treatment decisions, surveillance, and care of at-risk relatives. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recently incorporated recommendations for germline genetic evaluation of patients with MDS/AML on the basis of personal and family history features, but the practicality of implementing these recommendations has not been studied.
METHODS: A hereditary hematology quality improvement (QI) committee was formed to implement these guidelines in a prospective cohort of patients diagnosed with MDS/AML. Referral for germline genetic testing was recommended for patients meeting NCCN guideline criteria. Referral patterns and genetic evaluation outcomes were compared with a historical cohort of patients with MDS/AML. Barriers to evaluation were identified.
RESULTS: Of the 90 patients with MDS/AML evaluated by the QI committee, 59 (66%) met criteria for germline evaluation. Implementation of the QI committee led to more referrals for germline evaluation in accordance with NCCN guidelines (31% v 14%, P = .03). However, the majority of those meeting criteria were never referred due to high medical acuity or being deceased or in hospice at the time of QI committee recommendations. Despite this, two (17%) of the 12 patients undergoing genetic testing were diagnosed with a hereditary myeloid malignancy syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS: Current NCCN guidelines resulted in two thirds of patients with MDS/AML meeting criteria for germline evaluation. A hereditary hematology-focused QI committee aided initial implementation and modestly improved NCCN guideline adherence. However, the high morbidity and mortality and prolonged inpatient stays associated with MDS/AML challenged traditional outpatient genetic counseling models. Further improvements in guideline adherence require innovating new models of genetic counseling and testing for this patient population.

OBJECTIVE: AML is a heterogeneous hematologic malignancy. Region-specific recommendations for AML management can enhance patient outcomes. This article aimed to develop recommendations for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
METHODS: Ten AML panel members from Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (KOQU) participated in a modified two-round Delphi process. The panel first identified the unmet regional needs and finalized a list of core variables. Next, they voted on iterative statements drawn from international recommendations and provided feedback via a questionnaire. Consensus voting ≤70% was discussed, and additional clinical decision making statements were suggested. At round closure, a consensus vote took place on revised statements.
RESULTS: The panel reached ≥97.8% consensus on AML management. The panel agreed to use international risk stratification categories for personalized treatment of AML. The presence of ≥10% blasts for recurrent genetic abnormalities was required for a diagnosis of AML. Key consensus was reached for different treatment stages. The panel noted that older patients pose a challenge because of poor cytogenetics and genetic anomalies and require different treatment approaches. The panel recommended venetoclax-hypomethylating agents; fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; and targeted therapy for AML relapsed/refractory disease. Supportive care is considered on the basis of prevailing organisms and drug resistance.
CONCLUSIONS: The GCC KOQU\'s consensus-based recommendations for managing AML include an evidence-based and region-specific framework.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Although the concomitant use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and anti-chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated to improve the antileukemic effect on AML, its usefulness remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of G-CSF priming as a remission induction therapy or salvage chemotherapy.
METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to the priming effect of G-CSF using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and summarized.
RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted and accessed the 278 records identified during the initial screening, and 62 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility in second screening. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the meta-analysis. A systematic review revealed that priming with G-CSF did not correlate with an improvement in response rate and overall survival (OS). The result of the meta-analysis revealed the tendency for lower relapse rate in the G-CSF priming groups without inter-study heterogeneity [RR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), p = 0.08; I2 = 4%, p = 0.35]. In specific populations, including patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk and those receiving high-dose cytarabine, the G-CSF priming regimen prolonged OS.
CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF priming in combination with intensive remission induction treatment is not universally effective in patients with AML. Further studies are required to identify the patient cohort for which G-CSF priming is recommended.

暂无摘要。

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) are essentially different manifestations of the same disease that are similarly managed. A number of molecular and cytogenetic variables with prognostic implications have been identified. Undetectable minimal residual disease at the end of treatment with chemoimmunotherapy or venetoclax-based combination regimens is an independent predictor of improved survival among patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. The selection of treatment is based on the disease stage, presence or absence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region mutation status, patient age, performance status, comorbid conditions, and the agent\'s toxicity profile. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CLL/SLL.

The classification of myeloid neoplasms continues to evolve along with advances in molecular diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of disease. An approach for disease classification has been grounded in international consensus that has facilitated understanding, identification and management of molecularly heterogeneous entities, as well as enabled consistent patient stratification into clinical trials and clinical registries over time. The new World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) Clinical Advisory Committee releasing separate classification systems for myeloid neoplasms in 2022 precipitated some concern amongst haematopathology colleagues both locally and internationally. While both classifications emphasise molecular disease classification over the historical use of morphology, flow cytometry and cytogenetic based diagnostic methods, notable differences exist in how morphological, molecular and cytogenetic criteria are applied for defining myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemias (AML). Here we review the conceptual advances, diagnostic nuances, and molecular platforms required for the diagnosis of MDS and AML using the new WHO and ICC 2022 classifications. We provide consensus recommendations for reporting bone marrow biopsies. Additionally, we address the logistical challenges encountered implementing these changes into routine laboratory practice in alignment with the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council reporting requirements for Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of non-hematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary or clonal) disorders with the potential for end-organ damage.
METHODS: Hypereosinophilia (HE) has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 109/L, and may be associated with tissue damage. After the exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on a combination of various tests. They include morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, molecular testing and flow immunophenotyping to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.
METHODS: Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2022 World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification endorse a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category \"myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions\" (MLN-eo-TK), and the MPN subtype, \"chronic eosinophilic leukemia\" (CEL). Lymphocyte-variant HE is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.
METHODS: The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (e.g., <1.5 × 109/L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Pemigatinib was recently approved for patients with relapsed or refractory FGFR1-rearranged neoplasms. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant HE and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-α have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. Mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 (IL-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody, is approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration for patients with idiopathic HES. Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been used for aggressive forms of HES and CEL, with outcomes reported for limited numbers of patients. Targeted therapies such as the IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab, IL-5 monoclonal antibody depemokimab, and various tyrosine kinase inhibitors for MLN-eo-TK, are under active investigation.

Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.

暂无摘要。