Correlation of Flow Cytometric Aberrations with Cytogenetic, Molecular Genetic, and Morphology in Patients with Unexplained Cytopenias

Introduction: Whereas morphological assessment and cytogenetics have been the cornerstone for the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), flow cytometry and mutational analyses are novel, evolving techniques. These diagnostic procedures play a role in identifying pre-MDS cases including idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS) and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS). Aim: To assess flow cytometric findings in ICUS and CCUS and their correlation with progression to MDS or myeloid neoplasm (MN), concurrent genetic aberrations, and underlying pathological evolution. Methods: Patients (Pts) who had undergone evaluation to rule out MDS and had retrospectively undergone flow cytometry, cytogenetic, mutational and morphological assessment were included. Flow cytometry results were classified as normal (no abnormality or 1 equivocal result), abnormal (2 abnormalities or at least 1 abnormality and 1 equivocal result), or atypical (1 abnormality or 2-3 equivocal results). Next generation sequencing included mutation analysis of: ASXL1, BCOR, BRAF, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, GATA1, GATA2, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, MYD88, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PTPN11, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, TERT, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1, ZRSR2. Results: A) Characteristics: 229 pts were assessed (median age 60 and 69% were males). Based on pathologist interpretation, 87 (38%) pts met diagnostic criteria of MDS, 106 (46%) pts had normal/reactive bone marrow (BM), and 36 (16%) pts had BM findings suspicious for MDS. Median time to follow-up was 24 months for MDS pts, and 32 months for pts with cytopenias. B) Morphology: Pts who had a BM biopsy that was suspicious for MDS by pathologist interpretation were more likely to develop MDS compared to pts with normal/reactive pathology report with an incidence rate (IR) of 16% versus 0.9% (p= .0005). Pts who were suspicious for MDS based on the BM biopsy were more likely to have underlying mutations compared to pts with normal/reactive BM (IR 83% versus 69%, p= .2). C) Flow cytometry: In the non-MDS cohort, 96 (67%) pts had normal flow results, 29 (20%) pts had atypical flow, and 17 (12%) pts had abnormal flow results compared to 16 (18%) pts, 18 (21%) pts, and 53 (61%) pts in the MDS cohort, respectively. Of the pts who had normal flow result (n=112), 16 were MDS, 16 were suspicious for MDS/MN, and 80 were normal/reactive. Pts who had biopsy interpretation suspicious for MDS/MN were more likely to have abnormal flow cytometry compared to normal/reactive BM biopsy (IR 55% versus 24%, p=.0003). IR of MDS was 4% in normal flow, 3% in atypical flow, and 12% in abnormal flow (p= .5). Likewise, IR of MN was 4% in normal flow, 20% in atypical flow, and 30% in abnormal flow (p= .1). D) Genetics (cytogenetics and mutation profiling): Cytogenetics was normal in 123 (86%) pts and abnormal in 19 (13%) pts. Pts who had abnormal cytogenetics were more likely to develop MN (IR 57% versus 5%, p= .002). Out of the 50 non-MDS pts tested for NGS, 38 (76%) were positive for mutations. 15 (39%) pts had 1 mutation, 8 (21%) pts had 2, 3 (8%) pts had 3, 6 (16%) pts had 4, 2 (5%) pts had 5, 1 (3%) pt had 7, and 1 (3%) pt had 8 mutations (61% had >1 mutation). Pts with positive mutations were more likely to develop MDS during follow-up compared to pts who did not have mutations (IR 16% versus 0%, p=.06). Additionally, flow cytometric aberrations significantly correlate with the number of mutations (p= .03). MN correlated significantly with BCOR mutation and RUNX1 (IR 60% (p= .008) and 50% (p=.02), respectively. E) Interaction between variables: In pts with positive mutations, flow cytometry did not correlate with progression to MDS with an IR of 17% of MDS in normal flow, 11% in atypical flow, and 17% in abnormal flow, (p= .9). There was no impact on overall survival neither in pts with abnormal flow results vs normal nor in pts with positive mutations vs wild type. Conclusion: Conventional diagnostic techniques remain the cornerstone of MDS diagnosis with flow cytometry and NGS arising as novel techniques that correlate significantly with progression of pre-MDS pts to MDS. Flow had an impact on pathology final interpretation but did not add value in pt with a positive mutation analysis. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.