We retrospectively evaluated 8 cases of aggressive mature B-cell lymphoma with atypical morphology during a two-year period from two medical centers.
C-
MYC rearrangements are frequently found in these lymphomas (6/8, 75%). In addition, these lymphomas also frequently harbor t(14;18) (3/5, 60%) and/or trisomy 8 (2/6, 20%) genetic abnormalities. The current study indicates that these genetic abnormalities might be associated with the atypical morphology of aggressive B-cell lymphomas. Interestingly,
C-
MYC rearrangements are identified in all 6 cases with ≤90% proliferation index, but are not detected in the remaining 2 cases with ≥95% proliferation index, demonstrating a poor correlation between the proliferation index and
C-
MYC rearrangements. Although this series is small, the results demonstrate the potential pitfall of using a near 100% proliferation rate as a surrogate marker for the diagnosis of BL. With overlapping features of BL and DLBCL, these aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas with atypical morphology may be another “grey zone lymphoma” lying between BL and DLBCL, and may require molecular studies to further define them [
5,
9,
10].
How should these cases be classified based on the current information available? In addition to the neoplastic cells having a mature B-cell phenotype, they also express BCL2 as well as CD10 and/or BCL6, which are markers for germinal center B cells. Both BL and some of the DLBCL are believed to originate from the germinal center B-cells based on their expression of CD10 and/or BCL6 [
11]. It is also believed that BCL2 expression can only be detected in DLBCL, but not in BL [
2–
4]. However, Barth
et al recently compared 7 endemic and 7 sporadic BL cases [
12]. They found that a uniform expression of CD10 was seen only in endemic BL cases (7/7), and about half of the sporadic BL cases (4/7) were negative for CD10. One of the sporadic BL case also expressed BCL2 (1/7). A recent study of 220 aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas demonstrated that >20% of the molecular Burkitt lymphomas expressed BCL2 [
5]. In our study, most cases were positive for both BCL2 (6/7) and
C-
MYC rearrangements (6/8). Although the majority of our cases are BCL6-positive (6/7), almost half of our cases (3/7) are negative for CD10 (see ). Considering the clinical behavior, the cases with
C-
MYC rearrangements (6/8) might have been atypical sporadic BL in retrospect.
The t(8;14) and its variant chromosomal translocations are currently the most specific cytogenetic abnormalities for BL [
3]. FISH analysis is one of the most sensitive approaches in identifying all these translocations in routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. However, the commonly used
MYC/
IGH probe can only detect the fusion in ~80% of the BL [
13,
14]. Recently, the break-apart
C-
MYC probe set (Vysis) was developed to detect t(8;14) as well as the variant
C-
MYC rearrangements t(2;8) and t(8;22)[
15]. We opted to use this probe set in this study because of its increased diagnostic sensitivity. Although the
C-
MYC partner genes are not identified by this approach, since
IG-
MYC is much more common in aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas [
9], most of the partner genes in our cases are presumably
IG. Since
C-
MYC gene may be activated by translocations with other partner genes [
16], our approach may be able to detect those
C-MYC rearrangements as well. With our approach, we have detected
C-
MYC rearrange-ments in most (75%) of our cases of morphologically aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas. The findings are clinically relevant because more and more studies suggested that DLBCL with
C-
MYC rearrangements might have a clinical course resembling BL [
17,
18].
Half of our cases harbor the t(14;18) in addition to
C-MYC rearrangements, which created a dilemma in classifying these lymphomas. Although lymphomas similar to our cases were lumped together with DLBCLs and the
C-
MYC rearrangement was considered a secondary event reflecting tumor progression [
19], recent studies suggested that DLBCLs with both
C-
MYC rearrangements and t(14;18) behaved more aggressively clinically like BL [
17,
18]. Therefore, even if the
C-
MYC rearrangement is indeed an event of progression, the emergence of t(8;14) in addition to the t(14;18) should perhaps justify the interpretation of progression to BL [
20], and thus the lymphoma should be managed like BL. Further studies are needed to characterize mature B cell lymphomas with both
C-
MYC rearrangement and t(14;18) since their clinical management may be significantly different from either BL or DLBCL.
To avoid under- or over-treatment of the patients, it is critical to distinguish BL from DLBCL when encountering these aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas with atypical morphology. Since diagnosis of BL requires strict criteria (CD10+, BCL6+, close to a 100% proliferation index and
IG-
MYC), many cases that do not meet all these criteria were diagnosed as DLBCL, and therefore would not receive the benefit of intensified chemotherapy. More recent studies [
5,
9,
10] suggest that some of those DLBCL cases indeed had the molecular signatures of BL and over 10% of those molecular BL did not harbor any detectable
C-
MYC translocations [
4].
In summary, we should recognize this group of aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas with atypical morphology and
C-
MYC rearrangements when determining chemotherapy, since more and more studies show that they follow a similar clinical course as BL [
17,
18]. Although molecular profiling may be the eventual solution [
9,
10], it is not yet ready for real-time diagnosis [
21]. Cytogenetic studies may be routinely performed in all aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas with atypical morphology. With the increasing number of reported cases [
5,
9,
10,
17,
18], “aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas with atypical morphology” may emerge as another “grey zone lymphoma” between BL and DLBCL, and multicenter collaborative investigation is essential to further define the clinical, pathological and molecular signatures of these lymphomas.