T-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Arising in the Setting of Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasms with Eosinophilia: LMO2 Immunohistochemistry as a Potentially Useful Diagnostic Marker

Simple Summary Rarely, T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL) may develop in the setting of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia. Given important therapeutic implications, it is crucial to identify T-LBL arising in this particular context. LIM domain only 2 (LMO2) is known to be overexpressed in almost all sporadic T-LBL and not in immature TdT-positive T-cells in the thymus and in indolent T-lymphoblastic proliferations. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features of 11 cases of T-LBL occurring in the setting of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and investigated the immunohistochemical expression of LMO2 in this setting of T-LBL. Interestingly, 9/11 cases were LMO2 negative, with only 2 cases showing partial expression. In our study, we would suggest that LMO2 immunostaining, as part of the diagnostic panel for T-LBL, may represent a useful marker to identify T-LBL developing in the context of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia. Background: Rarely, T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL) may develop in the setting of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia (M/LNs-Eo), a group of diseases with gene fusion resulting in overexpression of an aberrant tyrosine kinase or cytokine receptor. The correct identification of this category has relevant therapeutic implications. LIM domain only 2 (LMO2) is overexpressed in most T-LBL, but not in immature TdT-positive T-cells in the thymus and in indolent T-lymphoblastic proliferations (iT-LBP). Methods and Results: We retrospectively evaluated 11 cases of T-LBL occurring in the context of M/LNs-Eo. Clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and molecular features were collected and LMO2 immunohistochemical staining was performed. The critical re-evaluation of these cases confirmed the diagnosis of T-LBL with morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features consistent with T-LBL occurring in M/LNs-Eo. Interestingly, LMO2 immunohistochemical analysis was negative in 9/11 cases, whereas only 2 cases revealed a partial LMO2 expression with a moderate and low degree of intensity, respectively. Conclusions: LMO2 may represent a potentially useful marker to identify T-LBL developing in the context of M/LNs-Eo. In this setting, T-LBL shows LMO2 immunohistochemical profile overlapping with cortical thymocytes and iT-LBP, possibly reflecting different molecular patterns involved in the pathogenesis of T-LBL arising in the setting of M/LNs-Eo.