[ALK-positive large B-cell lymphoma with EBV infection or cyclin D1 expression: a clinicopathological analysis of 3...

Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features and misdiagnosis factors of ALK positive large B-cell lymphoma (ALK⁺LBCL). Methods: The clinicopathological data of 3 patients with ALK⁺LBCL in the Department of Pathology, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from 2010 to 2021 were collected retrospectively. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used for immunophenotyping, in-situ hybridization (ISH) for EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) detection, in-situ fluorescence hybridization (FISH, break-apart probes) for ALK, MYC, and CCND1 translocations. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used for the detection of gene fusions and mutations. And clinicopathological features and prognosis of patients were analyzed. Results: Among the 3 ALK⁺LBCL patients, there were 2 males and 1 female, aged 42, 59, and 39 years, respectively, none of which presented with B symptoms. Case 1 showed systemic lymphadenopathy with elevated serum EBV DNA loading, while cases 2 and 3 presented with extranodal lesions in the nasal and hard palate, respectively. Bone marrow biopsies were performed in cases 1 and 3, and neither showed involvement. Case 1 was at clinical stage Ⅲ while both cases 2 and 3 were at stage Ⅰ, and IPI score ranged 0-1 in all cases. The morphology of these cases was similar. The architecture was effaced by sheets of cohesive large cells growing in extensive infiltration and intra-sinus growth pattern. The neoplastic cells showed immunoblastic or plasmablastic morphology, and large anaplastic cells were easily found. The tumor cells expressed ALK protein cytoplasmically in almost all cells, with ALK gene translocations detected by FISH. Common B-cell and T-cell markers, including CD20, PAX5, CD19, CD2, CD3, CD5, CD7, CD43, CD56, and bcl-2, were negative, while plasmacytic differentiation markers, including CD138, CD38, and MUM1, were positive; CD22, BOB1 and OCT2 were variably expressed. CD10 was strongly expressed only in case 3. All cases were negative for bcl-6 but positive for CD4, perforin, CD30 (partial cells), pSTAT3 (diffusely), and MYC (40%-50%). The Ki-67 index was ranged 60%-70%. MYC translocation was not detected in any case by FISH. In case 1, EBER was strongly positive in>90% of tumor cells. Case 3 was diffusely positive for cyclin D1 but negative for SOX11 expression and CCND1 translocation. All cases harbored ALK fusion genes detected by NGS. In case 1, the fusion partner was TFG, which had not been reported in DLBCL, while in the other 2 cases, ALK fused with the CTCL gene, which was commonly seen in ALK⁺LBCL. Cases 1 and 3 were treated with ECHOP-based chemotherapy for six cycles and were followed up for 70 and 27 months, respectively, and both achieved complete remission. Conclusions: ALK⁺LBCL cases with diffuse EBER-positivity reported in this study show TGF as a new fusion partner of ALK in DLBCL, together with cyclin D1 expression. These rare cases are easily confused with EBV positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (EBV⁺DLBCL, NOS), cyclin D1 positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (cyclin D1⁺DLBCL) and ALK positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK⁺ALCL), resulting in misdiagnosis. Being aware of these rare phenotypes is essential for pathologists to diagnose ALK+LBCL and guide appropriate treatment accurately.