Clinical Discernment, Bone Marrow, and Molecular Diagnostics Are Equally Important to Solve the Phenotypic Mimicry among Subtypes of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Abstract

The 2016 WHO classification integrates clinical, bone marrow (BM)-morphology, and molecular features to define disease entities. This together with the advancements in molecular detection and standardization of BM features enable an accurate diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) in the majority of patients. Diagnostic challenges remain due to phenotypic mimicry of MPN, failing specificity of BM-morphology, and the fact that phenotype-driver mutations, such as JAK2V617F, are not exclusive to a particular MPN, and their absence does not preclude any of these. We present a series of cases to illustrate themes to be considered in complex cases of MPN, such as triple-negative (TN)-MPN or MPN-unclassifiable (MPN-U). Eleven patients labelled as TN-MPN or MPN-U were included. Serum tryptase and NGS were part of a systematic/sequential multidisciplinary evaluation. Results were clustered into four categories based on diagnostic entities and/or how these diagnoses were made: (A) With expanding molecular techniques, BCR-ABL1 and karyotyping should not be missed; (B) systemic mastocytosis is underdiagnosed and often missed; (C) benign non-clonal disorders could mimic MPN; and (D) NGS could prove clonality in some “TN”-MPN cases. The prognostic/therapeutic consequences of an accurate diagnosis are immense. In TN-MPN or MPN-U cases, a multidisciplinary re-evaluation integrating molecular results, BM-morphology, and clinical judgment is crucial.