Abstract
Myeloid sarcoma (MS) is a distinct entity among myeloid neoplasms defined as a tumour mass of myeloid blasts occurring at an anatomical site other than the bone marrow, in most cases concomitant with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), rarely without bone marrow involvement. MS may also represent the blast phase of chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of AML, as highlighted by the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus (ICC) classifications, indirectly define MS more as a set of heterogeneous and proteiform diseases, rather than a homogeneous single entity. Diagnosis is challenging and relies mainly on histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and imaging. Molecular and cytogenetic analysis of MS tissue, particularly in isolated cases, should be performed to refine the diagnosis, and thus assign prognosis guiding treatment decisions. If feasible, systemic therapies used in AML remission induction should be employed, even in isolated MS. Role and type of consolidation therapy are not univocally acknowledged, and systemic therapies, radiotherapy, or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) should be considered. In the present review, we discuss recent information on MS, focusing on diagnosis, molecular findings, and treatments also considering targetable mutations by recently approved AML drugs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Myeloid neoplasms, typically liquid tumours, may manifest as extramedullary masses, representing a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge [1]. In 1811, more than two centuries ago, extramedullary manifestation of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) was firstly described [2] and named “chloroma”; this term derived from χλωρός (“chloros”), the Greek word for “green,” based on the tumour’s appearance related to the oxidation of myeloperoxidase (MPO) within the granules of immature myeloid cells [3, 4]. Lately, in 1965, the word “myeloblastoma” was coined, encompassing a more appropriate histologic description of the lesion [5]. Concurrently, the terms “granulocytic sarcoma” [6, 7] and “myeloid sarcoma” (MS) [8] were proposed. MS appears to be the most appropriate term for this entity, given its adoption by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the classification of myeloid neoplasms originally in 2008 [9] and then in revised version of 2016 [10]. In the latter, MS is defined as a tumour mass of myeloid blasts, with or without maturation, occurring at an anatomical site other than the bone marrow, specifying the mandatory effacement of local tissue architecture to properly define MS [10]. The latest WHO [11] and International Consensus Classification (ICC) [12] published in 2022 maintained the disease definition of MS. In Table 1, the latest ICC and WHO classifications for AML, including MS entity, are summarized.
MS can occur in the context of intramedullary AML (synchronous), but may also occur in an isolated form with an essentially normal bone marrow which is usually followed by the development of metachronous AML [13]. MS may represent a form of blast transformation in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) [14, 15], myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) [16], or MDS/MPN [17, 18]. Moreover, MS may be the first clinical manifestation of AML relapse, particularly after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) [19].
Epidemiology of MS is difficult to assess, also owing to the multitude of terms employed to describe the entity as well as the fact that in most studies, the incidence was reliant upon findings derived from descriptions of lesions without histologic confirmation. One of the oldest study (collecting patients diagnosed from 1949 to 1969 in Japan) documented an incidence of 8% of MS on autopsy from patients dying by AML [20].
Subsequently, larger studies documented that the rates of synchronous and isolated MS at diagnosis ranged from 0.2 to 2.8% and 0.6 to 0.8%, respectively [21,22,23,24,25].
There are scanty information about the rate of MS, either isolated or synchronous, at relapse after achieving complete remission (CR) with chemotherapy in patients with de novo AML; conversely, more data are available in the setting of post allo-HSCT, in which the incidence of MS was reported at 5–12% accounting for 7–46% of total relapses; of note, approximately 70% of MS after allo-HSCT are isolated [19, 26,27,28,29]. Considering MS following allo-HSCT as relapse, no significant correlations between conditioning intensity, graft source, or the presence/absence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were reported [30, 31]. Specifically, the risk of post allo-HSCT MS relapse in patients with a previous MS diagnosis is not well established and reported data are conflicting [30, 32].
MS has a slight male predominance and may occur at any age and at any site of the body. Organs most commonly involved include the skin (defined as leukaemia cutis), lymph nodes, genitals, breast, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, peritoneum, bone, and central nervous system (CNS) [13, 33,34,35]. In the largest study from US registry, a total of 94,185 cases of AML were reported from 2004 to 2013 of whom 746 patients were diagnosed with MS (0.8%). The median age was 59 years, and 56.1% were male. In that study, the three most common sites of presentation were connective/soft tissues (31.3%), skin/breast (12.3%), and GI tract (10.3%)[25]. Moreover, the frequency of the sites of organ involvement by MS was comparable between synchronous and isolated MS [13, 25].
Biological background and pathogenesis
The mechanisms for MS to develop are largely unknown. Some studies have focused on cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions within the bone marrow microenvironment analysing adhesion molecules and chemokine receptors/ligand interactions [36]. Differential expression of cellular adhesion molecules was initially reported, with leukaemia cells in patients with MS more frequently expressing CD56 (also known as neural cell adhesion molecule, NCAM) [37,38,39]. Homophilic binding mediated by CD56 was hypothesized to promote the binding of leukemic blasts to tissues expressing CD56 including adipose/soft tissue, skeletal muscle, GI tract, testicular, and brain, known frequent localization of MS [40]. However, subsequent studies failed to confirm overexpression of CD56 in most cases; moreover, the rate of CD56-positive leukemic cells was similar in patients with and without MS [24, 41].
Another surface protein, electively expressed on mononuclear cells, speculated to be related with MS development, is CD11b (surface β2-integrin member macrophage-1 antigen) [42]. However, these findings more reflect the enrichment of MS blasts with monoblastic or myelomonocytic phenotype and CD11b expression, rather than a direct causality [24, 43].
Chemokine receptor/ligand interactions orchestrate the migration of leukemic cells to peripheral tissues. In this regard, 15 paediatric AML patients with leukaemia cutis and 10 AML patients without skin involvement were studied. Interestingly, compared to controls, blood leukemic blasts significantly overexpressed CCR2. Moreover, leukaemia cutis cells displayed a different set of receptors (CCR5, CXCR4, CXCR7, and CX3CR1) [44]; interactions with epithelial CXCL12, a ligand for both CXCR4 and CXCR7, may contribute to the development of MS [45].
More recently, Yang et al. [46], employing single-cell RNA sequencing on BM and MS (leukaemia-cutis) samples, were able to detect a complement C1Q+ macrophage-like leukaemia subset, which was enriched within MS and pre-existed in BM. The authors demonstrated that C1Q expression, which was modulated by transcription factor MAF BZIP transcription factor B, endowed leukaemia cells with tissue infiltration ability; on the other hand, leukaemia cell dissemination was sustained by tissue fibroblasts that attract C1Q+ leukaemia cells via C1Q− globular C1Q receptor recognition and stimulation of transforming growth factor β1 synthesis. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated adverse prognosis significance of C1Q expression in large cohort of AML patients [46].
Other factors that may contribute to MS development, particularly the subset of post allo-HSCT relapse, could be related to escape from immune surveillance; however, solid data are lacking. In two independent studies, the overexpression of the immune checkpoints programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) was documented in only 7–10% of MS cases [47, 48].
Diagnosis: imaging and histopathology
Histopathological diagnosis of MS can be challenging, especially when MS occurs as isolated manifestation. It can be misdiagnosed as a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder, including Hodgkin lymphoma, histiocytic lymphoma, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, large-cell lymphoma, Ewing sarcoma, thymoma, round blue cell tumours, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or other rare hematopoietic neoplasm as blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm [13, 37, 49, 50]. Of note, MS must be distinguished from non-effacing extramedullary blastic proliferations as well as extramedullary haematopoiesis following administration of growth factors, particularly granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that can produce pseudotumoral masses [51]. Moreover, accumulation of mature hematopoietic cells can occur in advanced stage of MPN, particularly in myelofibrosis, as a manifestation of extramedullary haematopoiesis pathogenetically associated with the derangement of bone marrow microenvironment [51]. It may be challenging to distinguish these entities; in general, lack of a significant blast component supports a diagnosis of extramedullary haematopoiesis, excluding MS [51]. Historical retrospective series by Meis et al. reported a misdiagnosis rate of 75% [52], which was much lower in more recent series (from 25 to 47%) [53,54,55]. In the latter, misdiagnosis most commonly occurred due to inadequate immunophenotyping of MS lesion and it was not corrected until a diagnosis of AML was later established by bone marrow biopsy or peripheral blood smear [53,54,55]. Of note, in patients where lesion is in unusual sites and the risk of biopsy is high, treatment often starts without histopathology diagnosis in some patients with known AML (and synchronous MS). In these cases, the regression of lesions following leukaemia-directed therapy suggests the diagnosis of a MS ex adiuvantibus. Fine needle aspiration is usually inadequate to confirm the diagnosis; therefore, biopsy in patients without AML is mandatory. In selected case, radiologically guided core biopsy of the tumour mass may represent a valid alternative [56, 57]. However, the diagnosis of isolated MS warrants a bone marrow evaluation, including immunophenotyping, cytogenetic, and molecular analysis, to exclude the possibility of a concomitant AML.
The best imaging modality depends on the anatomic sites; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive to assess for central nervous system (CNS), spinal, and musculoskeletal lesions, whereas CT scan is best suited for soft tissue assessments [58,59,60,61]. 18-Fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/CT (18-FDG-PET/CT) can be performed to search for multiple site involvement, and it is usually used for planning radiotherapy and monitoring the treatment response [62, 63].
Morphologic appearance of MS by haematoxylin-eosin staining varies according to the degrees of differentiation of myeloblasts which may have features of promyelocytic or granulocytic maturation (in these cases, the presence of eosinophilic precursors is a helpful indicator of MS), whereas in most cases, they show a myelomonocytic or a pure monoblastic morphology [51, 64]. Predominance of erythroblasts or megakaryoblasts in the context of MS is extremely rare and is often reported in cases of blastic transformation of MPN or MDS/MPN[13]. Fresh tissue is usually not available; thus, the diagnosis is confirmed by using immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsies. In this regard, an extensive antibody panel should be performed. In Table 2, the rates of positive immunohistochemical staining according to the largest studies are reported. Overall, CD68/KP1 positive staining is documented in more than 90% of MS samples, whereas CD68/PGM1, which has a greater specificity for monocytes and macrophages, stains positive in about 50% of cases [13, 65, 66]. CD33, CD43, CD117, HLA-DR, and myeloperoxidase (MPO) are variably expressed in 40–95% of cases [13, 65, 66]; CD34 is positive in approximately 30% of cases, typically in more immature myeloid cells, whereas it is absent typically in promyelocytic and monoblastic variants [13, 65, 67]. Other studies reported positivity for CD99 [13], CD56 [13, 65,66,67], terminal-deoxy-nucleotidyl-transferase (TdT) [13, 66], CD163 [66], CD123 [66], CD4 [13, 66, 67], CD14 [66], and CD30[13]. Exceptionally, aberrant expression of cytokeratins as AE1/AE3 and CK8/18 was reported [68]. Some recent reports reported a not-infrequent BCL-2 positivity [69, 70]. Erythroid cases are positive for glycophorin A/C and CD71[71, 72], whereas megakaryoblastic MS express CD61 and von Willebrand factor (vWF) [73, 74].
Cytogenetic and molecular characteristics
According to available reports, MS cells demonstrate clonal cytogenetic abnormalities in 54–70% of cases [13, 67]. Although some older studies supported a higher than expected proportion of patients with (8;21)(q22;q22.1)/RUNX1::RUNX1T1 translocation [37, 75,76,77,78], subsequent larger studies demonstrated that RUNX1::RUNX1T1 is a rare event (2–3% of cases) in MS [13, 24]. Moreover, inv(16)(p13.1q22)/CBFB::MYH11 translocation was associated with MS in two series, particularly at abdominal sites [79,80,81,82]. Others reported cytogenetic alterations in MS to include t(9;11), del(16q), t(8;17), t(8;16), and t(1;11) and chromosome 4, 7, 8, or 11 abnormalities [13, 83, 84]. However, no clear association between cytogenetics of intramedullary AML and the occurrence of extramedullary disease can be demonstrated. The mutational landscape of MS is not yet fully characterized, and scanty data are available (Table 3).
FLT3-ITD mutations were the first mutation to be identified in MS cells, in up to 15% of cases [85, 86]. Limited data support a FLT3-TKD mutation rate of 17%, bringing the total rate of FLT3 mutations in MS to about 25–30%, which is quietly similar to those reported in AML [86]. However, a small recent study revealed a lower frequency of FLT3 mutations in the context of MS (1/16 cases, 6%) [87]. Considering different series together, NPM1 mutations were detected in 20–50% of cases [64, 86,87,88]. Recently, NPM1 mutated MS (N = 43) and AML (n = 106) were compared [89]; MS had more frequent cytogenetic abnormalities including complex karyotype and was enriched in mutations of genes involved in histone modification, including ASXL1. Conversely, NPM1 mutated AML, which displayed a better overall survival compared to NPM1 mutated MS, harboured a higher average number of gene mutations including PTPN11, DNMT3A, and IDH1 [89].
Other reports demonstrated that mutations in the RAS pathway, comprising KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PTPN11, and CBL, are common in MS with a rate of 30–85%, mostly KRAS/NRAS which accounted for 70% [86, 88, 90, 91]. Information on IDH1/2 mutations in patients with MS is scanty. In a small case series on isolated MS, IDH mutations were reported in 6/14 (42%) patients (four IDH2 and two IDH1) [92], whereas a study reported a IDH2 mutation in 1 of 7 patients with MS using paired MS and bone marrow samples [93]. Recently, Ball et al. documented IDH1 mutations in 5/19 (26%) patients, whereas 2/19 (11%) harboured IDH2 mutation in MS.
Highlighting the different subsets of MS, Pastoret et al. [88] evaluated the mutational status of MS arising in two groups: isolated/concomitant with AML and MS secondary to MPN/MDS. Mutations in DNMT3A, RUNX1, TP53, IDH2, NPM1, NRAS, KIT, and TET2 were found in the first group, whereas SF3B1 and SRSF2 mutations were found predominantly in the latter. Moreover, they compared genetics of MS to their marrow counterparts; 9/14 patients (64%) tested were found to harbour between 1 and 5 mutations. Of note, 2/9 patients had discordant results for DNMT3A, RUNX1, and TP53 (documented in MS but not in non-infiltrated bone marrow). In another study by Kashofer et al. [86] including 18 patients with MS (11 synchronous with AML and 7 isolated), NPM1, NRAS, and DNMT3A mutations were the most frequent. Of note, neither FLT3-ITD nor IDH2 mutations were reported in isolated MS cases and paired MS/bone marrow analysis in synchronous cases documented the same mutational landscape. The latter suggests that the risk profile obtained from leukemic BM might be sufficient and additional analysis of MS specimens is not strictly necessary. Overall, this result supports the conclusions of Ganzel et al. [24] who failed to observe, in a large retrospective analysis of 11 clinical trials from 1980 to 2008, a prognostic effect of extramedullary manifestations in AML patients treated with chemotherapy, concluding that additional biopsy of suspected MS sites might be not necessary in case AML diagnosed by BM analysis. However, intrinsic limitations of the latter study and low number of cases included in the previous reports are far from being adequate to clearly address this specific issue.
Prognostic implications
The prognosis in patients with both isolated and synchronous MS is controversial being largely dependent on tumour site, timing of presentation, genetics, and treatment strategies. Concerning site of involvement, one study reported differences with better outcomes for isolated MS involving the pelvis/genitourinary organs, eyes/gonads, and GI mucosa compared with disease localization in primary soft tissues, lymphatic/hematopoietic organs, or CNS [23].
Although historical assessments on the independent prognostic effect of MS supported inferior outcomes [94, 95], later studies have reported better survival with isolated MS when compared with both AML without MS and synchronous AML [22, 96], also including paediatric patients [97]; other large retrospective studies did not show a clear prognostic impact [13, 24, 33]. A better outcome of isolated MS when compared to pure AML or synchronous MS/AML was also reported in setting post allo-HSCT relapse [19]. A history of MDS or MPN seems to have a negative prognostic impact on survival in patients with MS [22, 33].
Therapeutic approaches
Treatment strategies are limited because of the rarity of the disease and lack of randomized clinical trials. Therapeutic choice is influenced by the different subsets including isolated MS versus synchronous MS, newly diagnosed, or relapsed, also including post allo-HSCT setting. Treatment with systemic AML protocols is the most reasonable approach as virtually all patients with MS eventually develop AML. Different therapeutic strategies are also dictated by size and location of MS (skin, CNS, or others) and patient’s specific factors as age, performance status (PS), and comorbidities. Considering all these factors, variable modalities of treatment can be utilized, including local therapy, chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies.
Local therapies
Local therapy includes either surgery or radiotherapy (RT). Up to 70% of patients with MS may have local symptoms; accordingly, local therapy provides an expedient palliation. In this regard, few reports support the use of surgery before the initiation of systemic treatment. Conversely, in some cases in which the diagnosis is difficult, surgical excision biopsy may be useful. Overall, an aggressive surgical approach is not supported since MS appears to be exquisitely sensitive to ionizing radiation. Involved field RT should be considered for patients with isolated MS and is recommended for all patients with MS refractory to systemic therapy[98]. Concerning radiation dose, one of the first study on 23 cases of MS reported a dose-response relationship with RT and most benefit from treatment with more than 10 Gy [99]. More recent studies suggest that a range of doses from 10 to 30 Gy over 1–3 weeks is highly effective [100, 101].
Radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy in MS was evaluated in limited trials, and although one trial suggested a potential survival benefit for the addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy [21], a large retrospective series of 71 patients (including studies from 1990 to 2014) showed no benefit from combination therapy [102]. Overall, recently published Guidelines From the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group recommended RT, mostly using a low-dose regimen of 24 Gy in 12 fractions with conventional techniques, in the following scenarios: (i) for patients with isolated MS and inadequate response to chemotherapy, (ii) with isolated recurrence after allo-HSCT, and (iii) for palliation of symptomatic vital structure compression [103].
Systemic therapies
The role of induction chemotherapy in MS is supported by several studies even in isolated cases, given that most (71–100%) patients treated with localized therapies (surgery and/or radiotherapy) progress to AML at a median of 4–6 months [21, 50, 53, 104, 105]. In isolated MS, systemic chemotherapy also has been shown to decrease progression to AML and increase overall survival. In addition, time to progression to AML was longer in those treated with systemic chemotherapy as opposed to local radiotherapy or surgery. These observations support the NCCN recommendation that patients with isolated MS (as those with synchronous MS), if eligible, must be treated with systemic therapy as per AML [98]. Conversely, the latest European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines offer no specific recommendations [106].
No MS-specific treatment regimens have been adopted; intensive therapy-eligible patients are classically treated with anthracycline and cytarabine-based regimens [21, 53, 94]. Controlled clinical trials including and/or specific to MS patients are missing, making the superiority of one intensive regimen over the others unknown.
For intensive therapy-ineligible patients, hypomethylating agents (HMA) as azacitidine (5-azacytidine) [107,108,109,110,111] and decitabine (5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine) [112,113,114,115,116] were reported to induce clinical remissions, yet at varying degrees, in few reports. Overall, they were used in less than 20 cases including treatment-naïve and relapse/refractory MS.
Almost all the studies cited above describing the treatment of MS were performed prior to the availability of approved targeted therapies for AML, which have broadened the options and potentially improved the outcomes. In particular, since 2017, several therapies have received regulatory approval, alone and/or in combination with chemotherapy, including CPX-351 (a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin at a fixed 5:1 molar ratio); kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib, midostaurin and gilteritinib, ivosidenib, and enasidenib (IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors, respectively); BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax; and glasdegib, an inhibitor of the transmembrane protein smoothened (SMO) involved in the Hedgehog signalling pathway [117]. Among all these therapies, only few data concerning efficacy in MS are reported, mainly in case reports.
Concerning the use of sorafenib for the treatment of MS, there are results from a small phase II study including 26 refractory AML cases with CNS involvement with 8 of them having FLT3-ITD mutation. After 8 weeks of treatment with sorafenib in combination with conventional chemotherapy, 21 patients achieved complete remission (CR), 2 achieved partial response, and 3 were refractory, resulting in an overall CR rate of 80.8% and an overall response rate of 88.5%. Of note, the 2-year event-free survival and OS rates were 75.0% and 76.9%, respectively [118]. Moreover, at least five case reports demonstrating efficacy of gilteritinib in the subset of FLT3 mutated MS were published [119,120,121,122,123,124].
As above reported, IDH1/IDH2 mutations have been described in MS; some published data support the use of enasidenib or ivosidenib in these patients. In this regards, in a retrospective series of 58 MS cases, treatment with ivosidenib led to a complete response (CR) in 2 of 3 patients with IDH1 mutations. One patient with an IDH2 mutation was treated with enasidenib for MS and experienced CR. The median duration of response was 15 months (range 7–18 months), with an estimated median OS of 26.6 months in patients responding to IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors [87].
Moreover, few other cases highlighting venetoclax efficacy in the context of MS were described [70, 125,126,127]. In this regard, the diffusion of venetoclax through the cerebrospinal membrane might be advantageous for treating CNS involvement [128].
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Nowadays, there are no controlled prospective clinical trials evaluating the role of allo-HSCT as post-remission therapy in patients with isolated MS or concomitant AML and MS. Due to its potential immunological anti-leukemic effect, it has been hypothesized that allo-HSCT should be always used in first remission to overcome the potential poor prognostic impact of MS [94, 95]. On the contrary, isolated MS relapses, usually hiding and anticipating a systemic relapse, are relatively common following allo-HSCT indicating a relative lack of graft versus leukaemia effect [32]. In this regard, in different dated studies, reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens, T cell depleted grafts, or non-total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens have been associated with higher rates of MS relapse and may reduce the effectiveness of allo-HSCT in AML with MS [26, 129,130,131]. Overall, contemporary data supporting allo-HSCT in first remission in all the patients with MS are lacking.
More recently, the outcome of allo-HSCT was evaluated in three large retrospective series involving mostly synchronous AML/MS. In a retrospective analysis of 51 patients with MS (with only 12% as isolated MS), the 5-year OS was 47% with a median follow-up of 33 months [132]; similar results were reported in a study from a large Japan cohort of 503 consecutive adult AML patients (median age, 44 years; range, 15–73 years) who received allo-HSCT, including 44 patients with MS (8.7%). Overall, comparable survival was reported in patients with and without MS (5-year OS was 47% and 44%, respectively) [133]. In the latest and largest study, using data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research including 310 centres and 44 different countries, the presence of MS at any time before allo-HSCT did not adversely affect the outcomes in 813 patients when compared with a cohort of AML patients without MS (N = 8983) [134]. Moreover, the presence of MS did not affect OS, leukaemia-free survival, treatment-related mortality, or risk of relapse, also in multivariable analysis, and the outcome was not influenced by the location, timing (concomitant or synchronous MS), or intensity of conditioning regimen [134]. The authors also tested for any interaction between the presence of concomitant MS and the intensity of the conditioning regimen on the risk of relapse. Among those with extramedullary disease, the rate of patients underwent myeloablative with TBI, myeloablative without TBI and non-myeloablative conditioning regimens were 47%, 35%, and 18%, respectively. Specifically, they did not identify any interaction between myeloablative (including TBI) and non-myeloablative conditioning on the risk of relapse. In particular, after myeloablative conditioning regimen, the relative risk of relapse was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.95–1.24; P = 0.21) and for reduced intensity conditioning was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70–1.14; P = 0.36) [134]. More recently, although without a sub-analysis for adult AML patients with and without extramedullary involvement, TBI (12 Gy) plus fludarabine versus busulfan plus fludarabine as a myeloablative conditioning before allo-HSCT in patients with AML were comparable in relation to efficacy and safety in both first and second remissions [135]. Similarly, a recent large retrospective study including paediatric AML patients treated with and without TBI in the context of myeloablative conditioning regimens failed to demonstrate the clear advantage of TBI in terms of overall and leukaemia free survival [136].
More specifically, in the setting of isolated MS, consolidation with allo-HSCT has not been adequately studied, mainly due to low number of cases and heterogeneity of presentation [13, 132]. In the light of these observation, although limited and retrospective, the consolidation therapy for MS (with and without concomitant AML) should follow the same approach used for AML; accordingly, patients with higher risk (depending on cytogenetic and molecular profiles) should undergo allo-HSCT, hopefully in first remission, whereas consolidation chemotherapy should be reserved for patients with lower risk disease or patients who are unfit for allo-HSCT. Moreover, allo-HSCT should be considered in all cases of relapsed/refractory MS.
Finally, lacking clear evidences, the choice of conditioning regimen should be based on patients’ medical history and comorbidities, availability of TBI, and the experience of the individual centre.
Conclusions
MS is a rare entity among myeloid neoplasms, probably underestimated, which can occur at any site with and without a bone marrow involvement. The diagnosis, particularly in isolated cases, may be difficult since MS can mimic other diseases, particularly other myeloid or lymphoproliferative neoplasms. Therefore, immunohistochemistry is mandatory for diagnosis and an extensive antibody panel should be performed, preferably on excision or core biopsies. Although to date rarely performed, cytogenetic and molecular analysis on MS biopsy could be useful to risk stratify patients and guide treatment strategies. A bone marrow evaluation, including immunophenotyping, cytogenetic, and molecular analysis, is mandatory in all the cases to exclude the possibility of a concomitant AML. Conversely, a biopsy of suspected MS might be not necessary in AML cases diagnosed by bone marrow analysis.
No consensus management guidelines are available. Since isolated MS is predictive of intramedullary disease, induction systemic therapies (chemotherapy alone or combined with target drugs) appear to provide a survival benefit over local treatments (mainly radiotherapy). Consolidation treatment remains controversial, and radiotherapy, systemic therapies, and/or allo-HSCT should be adopted depending on extent of involvement, risk profile, and performance status of individual patient. Relapsed MS should be treated as relapsed AML, including the use of recently approved agents, if indicated.
As described above, some targeted drugs have shown efficacy in the treatment of MS; however, in almost all cases, they have been used in refractory/relapsed MS setting, after multiple lines of conventional therapies. This can lead to drug resistance or clonal evolution, reducing the effectiveness of treatment. Accordingly, the earlier use of novel agents could be beneficial for patients with MS.
Further studies and inclusion of patients with MS in large multicentre prospective clinical trials, to better identify the best clinical management, are needed.
Data availability
Not applicable
References
Ohanian M, Faderl S, Ravandi F et al (2013) Is acute myeloid leukemia a liquid tumor? Int J Cancer 133:534–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28012
Burns A (1811) Observations of surgical anatomy, head and neck. United Kingdom Thomas Royce Co, Edinburgh, pp 364–366
King A (1853) A case of chloroma. Mon J Med 17:97
Dock G (1893) Chloroma and its relation to leukemia. Am J Med Sci 106:152–157
Comings DEFACP (1965) Myeloblastoma preceding blood and marrow evidence of acute leukemia. Cancer 18:253–258
Rappaport H (1966) Tumors of the hematopoietic system. Atlas of tumor pathology, Sect 3, Fasc 8, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington D.C
Wiernik PH, Serpick AA (1970) Granulocytic sarcoma (chloroma). Blood 35:361–369. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v35.3.361.361
Fayemi AO, Gerber MA, Cohen I, Davis S, Rubin AD (1973) Myeloid sarcoma. Review of the literature and report of a case. Cancer 32:253–258
Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA et al (2009) The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood 114:937–951. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-03-209262
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R et al (2016) The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 127:2391–2405
Khoury JD, Solary E, Abla O et al (2022) The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms. Leukemia 36:1703–1719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-022-01613-1
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian RP et al (2022) International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias: integrating morphologic, clinical, and genomic data. Blood 140:1200–1228. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2022015850
Pileri SA, Ascani S, Cox MC et al (2007) Myeloid sarcoma: clinico-pathologic, phenotypic and cytogenetic analysis of 92 adult patients. Leukemia 21(2):340–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2404491
Kasahara S, Tsurumi H, Hara T et al (2000) Idiopathic myelofibrosis developing isolated granulocytic sarcoma with der (1;7)(q10; p10) after splenectomy and finally transforming to acute myelogenous leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 39:427–433. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428190009065844
Coltro G, Mannelli F, Vergoni F et al (2020) Extramedullary blastic transformation of primary myelofibrosis in the form of disseminated myeloid sarcoma: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Exp Med 20:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-020-00616-5
Hancock JCPJBJLC (1997) Trilineage extramedullary myeloid cell tumor in myelodysplastic syndrome. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121:520–523
Imamura T, Matsuo S, Yoshihara T et al (2004) Granulocytic sarcoma presenting with severe adenopathy (cervical lymph nodes, tonsils, and adenoids) in a child with juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia and successful treatment with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Int J Hematol 80:186–189. https://doi.org/10.1532/IJH97.04040
Elenitoba-Johnson KHGKTWCML (1996) Extramedullary myeloid cell tumors arising in the setting of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. A report of two cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:62–67
Solh M, DeFor TE, Weisdorf DJ, Kaufman DS (2012) Extramedullary relapse of acute myelogenous leukemia after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: better prognosis than systemic relapse. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 18:106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.05.023
Liu PI, Ishimaru T, McGregor DH et al (1973) Autopsy study of granulocytic sarcoma (chloroma) in patients with myelogenous leukemia, hiroshima-nagasaki 1949-1969. Cancer 31:948–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197304)31:4<948::AID-CNCR2820310428>3.0.CO;2-N
Tsimberidou A-M, Kantarjian HM, Estey E et al (2003) Outcome in patients with nonleukemic granulocytic sarcoma treated with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. Leukemia 17:1100–1103. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2402958
Lan T-Y, Lin D-T, Tien H-F et al (2009) Prognostic factors of treatment outcomes in patients with granulocytic sarcoma. Acta Haematol 122:238–246. https://doi.org/10.1159/000253592
Movassaghian M, Brunner AM, Blonquist TM et al (2015) Presentation and outcomes among patients with isolated myeloid sarcoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database analysis. Leuk Lymphoma 56:1698–1703. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2014.963080
Ganzel C, Manola J, Douer D et al (2016) Extramedullary disease in adult acute myeloid leukemia is common but lacks independent significance: analysis of patients in ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Trials, 1980-2008. J Clin Oncol 34:3544–3553. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.5892
Goyal G, Bartley AC, Patnaik MM et al (2017) Clinical features and outcomes of extramedullary myeloid sarcoma in the United States: analysis using a national data set. Blood Cancer J 7:e592–e592. https://doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2017.79
Lee K-H, Lee J-H, Choi S-J et al (2003) Bone marrow vs extramedullary relapse of acute leukemia after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: risk factors and clinical course. Bone Marrow Transplant 32:835–842. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1704223
Lee K-H, Lee J-H, Kim S et al (2000) High frequency of extramedullary relapse of acute leukemia after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 26:147–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702488
Shimizu H, Saitoh T, Hatsumi N et al (2013) Prevalence of extramedullary relapses is higher after allogeneic stem cell transplantation than after chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res 37:1477–1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2013.08.017
Yoshihara S, Ando T, Ogawa H (2012) Extramedullary relapse of acute myeloid leukemia after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: an easily overlooked but significant pattern of relapse. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 18:1800–1807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.05.010
Alhashim N, Aljurf M, Hassanein M et al (2018) Extramedullary relapses after allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: clinical characteristics, incidence, risk factors and outcomes. Bone Marrow Transplant 53:838–843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0093-9
Frietsch JJ, Hunstig F, Wittke C et al (2021) Extra-medullary recurrence of myeloid leukemia as myeloid sarcoma after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: impact of conditioning intensity. Bone Marrow Transplant 56:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-020-0984-4
Harris AC, Kitko CL, Couriel DR et al (2013) Extramedullary relapse of acute myeloid leukemia following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. Haematologica 98:179–184. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2012.073189
Kawamoto K, Miyoshi H, Yoshida N et al (2016) Clinicopathological, cytogenetic, and prognostic analysis of 131 myeloid sarcoma patients. Am J Surg Pathol 40:1473–1483. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000727
Claerhout H, Van Aelst S, Melis C et al (2018) Clinicopathological characteristics of de novo and secondary myeloid sarcoma: a monocentric retrospective study. Eur J Haematol 100:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13056
Ullman DI, Dorn D, Jones JA et al (2019) Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of extramedullary acute myeloid leukaemia. Histopathology 75:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13864
Windisch R, Pirschtat N, Kellner C et al (2019) Oncogenic deregulation of cell adhesion molecules in leukemia. Cancers (Basel) 11:311. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11030311
Byrd JC, Weiss RB (1994) Recurrent granulocytic sarcoma. An unusual variation of acute myelogenous leukemia associated with 8;21 chromosomal translocation and blast expression of the neural cell adhesion molecule. Cancer 73:2107–2112. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19940415)73:8<2107::AID-CNCR2820730815>3.0.CO;2-W
Hurwitz CA, Raimondi SC, Head D et al (1992) Distinctive immunophenotypic features of t(8;21)(q22;q22) acute myeloblastic leukemia in children. Blood 80:3182–3188
Baer MR, Stewart CC, Lawrence D et al (1997) Expression of the neural cell adhesion molecule CD56 is associated with short remission duration and survival in acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22). Blood 90:1643–1648
Cunningham BA, Hemperly JJ, Murray BA et al (1987) Neural cell adhesion molecule: structure, immunoglobulin-like domains, cell surface modulation, and alternative RNA splicing. Science 236:799–806. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3576199
Chang H, Brandwein J, Chun K, Patterson B, Brien B (2004) Extramedullary infiltrates of AML are associated with CD56 expression, 11q23 abnormalities and inferior clinical outcome. Leuk Res 28:1007–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2004.01.006
Reuss-Borst MAKGWHMC (1995) Differential expression of adhesion molecules in acute leukemia. Leukemia 9:869–874
Juncà J, Garcia-Caro M, Granada I et al (2014) Correlation of CD11b and CD56 expression in adult acute myeloid leukemia with cytogenetic risk groups and prognosis. Ann Hematol 93:1483–1489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-014-2082-4
Faaij CMJM, Willemze AJ, Révész T et al (2010) Chemokine/chemokine receptor interactions in extramedullary leukaemia of the skin in childhood AML: differential roles for CCR2, CCR5, CXCR4 and CXCR7. Pediatr Blood Cancer 55:344–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22500
Burger JA, Bürkle A (2007) The CXCR4 chemokine receptor in acute and chronic leukaemia: a marrow homing receptor and potential therapeutic target. Br J Haematol 137:288–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06590.x
Yang L-X, Zhang C-T, Yang M-Y et al (2023) C1Q labels a highly aggressive macrophage-like leukemia population indicating extramedullary infiltration and relapse. Blood 141:766–786. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2022017046
Kawamoto K, Miyoshi H, Suzuki T et al (2018) Expression of programmed death ligand 1 is associated with poor prognosis in myeloid sarcoma patients. Hematol Oncol 36:591–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.2506
Meleveedu KS, Chen D, Nadiminti K et al (2021) PD-1/PD-L1 expression in extramedullary lesions of acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 62:764–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2019.1675880
Loscocco GG, Piccini M, Vergoni F et al (2018) A case of disseminated blastic plasmocytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Am J Hematol 93:1433–1434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25109
Neiman RS, Barcos M, Berard C et al (1981) Granulocytic sarcoma: a clinicopathologic study of 61 biopsied cases. Cancer 48:1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19810915)48:6<1426::AID-CNCR2820480626>3.0.CO;2-G
O’Malley DP (2007) Benign extramedullary myeloid proliferations. Mod Pathol 20:405–415. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800768
Wilson CS, Medeiros LJ (2015) Extramedullary manifestations of myeloid neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol 144:219–239. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPO58YWIBUBESX
Yamauchi K, Yasuda M (2002) Comparison in treatments of nonleukemic granulocytic sarcoma. Cancer 94. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10399
Seifert RP, Bulkeley W, Zhang L et al (2014) A practical approach to diagnose soft tissue myeloid sarcoma preceding or coinciding with acute myeloid leukemia. Ann Diagn Pathol 18(4):253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.06.001
Roth MJ, Medeiros LJ, Elenitoba-Johnson K et al (1995) Extramedullary myeloid cell tumors. An immunohistochemical study of 29 cases using routinely fixed and processed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med 119:790–798
Campidelli C, Agostinelli C, Stitson R, Pileri SA (2009) Myeloid sarcoma. Am J Clin Pathol 132(3):426–437. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP1ZA7HYZKAZHS
Wilson CS, Medeiros LJ (2015) Extramedullary manifestations of myeloid neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol 144(2):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPO58YWIBUBESX
Ooi GC, Chim CS, Khong PL et al (2001) Radiologic manifestations of granulocytic sarcoma in adult leukemia. Am J Roentgenol 176:1427–1431. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.6.1761427
Choi EK, Ha HK, Park SH et al (2007) Granulocytic sarcoma of bowel: CT findings. Radiology 243:752–759. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433060747
Noh BW, Park S-W, Chun J-E et al (2009) Granulocytic sarcoma in the head and neck: CT and MR imaging findings. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2:66. https://doi.org/10.3342/ceo.2009.2.2.66
Chaudhry AA, Gul M, Chaudhry AA, Dunkin J (2016) Qualitative assessment of diffusion weighted imaging and susceptibility weighted imaging of myeloid sarcoma involving the brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 40:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000337
Stolzel F, Rollig C, Radke J et al (2011) 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 96:1552–1556. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.045047
Cribe A-SWI, Steenhof M, Marcher CW et al (2013) Extramedullary disease in patients with acute myeloid leukemia assessed by (18)F-FDG PET. Eur J Haematol 90:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.12085
Falini B, Lenze D, Hasserjian R et al (2007) Cytoplasmic mutated nucleophosmin (NPM) defines the molecular status of a significant fraction of myeloid sarcomas. Leukemia 21:1566–1570. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2404699
Chang C-C, Eshoa C, Kampalath B et al (2000) Immunophenotypic profile of myeloid cells in granulocytic sarcoma by immunohistochemistry. Am J Clin Pathol 114:807–811. https://doi.org/10.1309/WWW7-DG6X-HC16-D7J2
Sangle NA, Schmidt RL, Patel JL et al (2014) Optimized immunohistochemical panel to differentiate myeloid sarcoma from blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Mod Pathol 27:1137–1143. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2013.238
Kaur V, Swami A, Alapat D et al (2018) Clinical characteristics, molecular profile and outcomes of myeloid sarcoma: a single institution experience over 13 years. Hematology 23(1):17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245332.2017.1333275
Dayton VJ, Beckman A, Linden M (2022) Myeloid sarcoma expressing keratins and mimicking carcinoma—case report and literature review. Lab Med 53:100–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmab025
Wang H-Q, Li J (2016) Clinicopathological features of myeloid sarcoma: report of 39 cases and literature review. Pathol-Res Pract 212:817–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2016.06.014
Kanate AS, Vos J, Chargualaf MJ (2019) Venetoclax for refractory myeloid sarcoma. J Oncol Pract 15:413–415. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00753
King RL, Siaghani PJ, Wong K et al (2021) Novel t(1;8)(p31.3;q21.3) NFIA-RUNX1T1 translocation in an infant erythroblastic sarcoma. Am J Clin Pathol 156:129–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaa216
Li H, Hasserjian RP, Kroft SH et al (2016) Pure erythroid leukemia and erythroblastic sarcoma evolving from chronic myeloid neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol 145:538–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqw033
Famoso G, Ponzoni M, Freschi M et al (2006) Megakaryoblastic differentiation of myeloid sarcoma in a patient with essential thrombocythemia. Leuk Lymphoma 47:2414–2417. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428190600881231
Jakobiec FA, Wolkow N, Zakka FR, Rubin PAD (2019) Myeloid sarcoma with megakaryoblastic differentiation arising in the conjunctiva. Ocul Oncol Pathol 5:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488057
Tallman MS (2004) Extramedullay acute myeloid leukemia infiltrates. Leuk Res 28:1005–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2004.03.021
Byrd JC, Edenfield WJ, Shields DJ, Dawson NA (1995) Extramedullary myeloid cell tumors in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia: a clinical review. J Clin Oncol 13:1800–1816. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.7.1800
Krishnan K, Ross CW, Adams PT et al (1994) Neural cell-adhesion molecule (CD 56)-positive, t(8; 21) acute myeloid leukemia (AML, M-2) and granulocytic sarcoma. Ann Hematol 69:321–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01696563
Tallman MS, Hakimian D, Shaw JM et al (1993) Granulocytic sarcoma is associated with the 8;21 translocation in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 11:690–697. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.4.690
Alvarez P, Navascues CA, Ordieres C et al (2011) Granulocytic sarcoma of the small bowel, greater omentum and peritoneum associated with a CBFbeta/MYH11 fusion and inv(16) (p13q22): a case report. Int Arch Med 4:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-4-3
Zhang X-H, Zhang R, Li Y (2010) Granulocytic sarcoma of abdomen in acute myeloid leukemia patient with inv(16) and t(6;17) abnormal chromosome: Case report and review of literature. Leuk Res 34:958–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2010.01.009
Ohanian M, Huang RSP, Yakoushina TV et al (2014) Isolated mesenteric CD20-positive myeloid sarcoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 14:e217–e220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2014.06.027
Solh M, Yohe S, Weisdorf D, Ustun C (2014) Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: heterogeneity, monitoring, and therapy. Am J Hematol 89:1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.23821
Peterson L, Dehner LP, Brunning RD (1981) Extramedullary masses as presenting features of acute monoblastic leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol 75:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/75.2.140
Ridge SA, Wiedemann LM (1994) Chromosome 11q23 abnormalities in leukaemia. Leuk Lymphoma 14:11–17. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428199409049646
Ali Ansari-Lari M, Yang C-F, Tinawi-Aljundi R et al (2004) FLT3 mutations in myeloid sarcoma. Br J Haematol 126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05124.x
Kashofer K, Gornicec M, Lind K et al (2018) Detection of prognostically relevant mutations and translocations in myeloid sarcoma by next generation sequencing. Leuk Lymphoma 59:501–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2017.1339879
Ball S, Knepper TC, Deutsch YE et al (2022) Molecular annotation of extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia identifies high prevalence of targetable mutations. Cancer 128:3880–3887. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34459
Pastoret C, Houot R, Llamas-Gutierrez F et al (2017) Detection of clonal heterogeneity and targetable mutations in myeloid sarcoma by high-throughput sequencing. Leuk Lymphoma 58(4):1008–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2016.1225208
Ramia de Cap M, Wu LP, Hirt C et al (2023) Myeloid sarcoma with NPM1 mutation may be clinically and genetically distinct from AML with NPM1 mutation: a study from the Bone Marrow Pathology Group. Leuk Lymphoma:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2023.2185091
Choi M, Jeon YK, Sun C-H et al (2018) RTK-RAS pathway mutation is enriched in myeloid sarcoma. Blood Cancer J 8:43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-018-0083-6
Eckardt J-N, Stölzel F, Kunadt D et al (2022) Molecular profiling and clinical implications of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and extramedullary manifestations. J Hematol Oncol 15:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-022-01267-7
Willekens C, Renneville A, Broutin S et al (2018) Mutational profiling of isolated myeloid sarcomas and utility of serum 2HG as biomarker of IDH1/2 mutations. Leukemia 32(9):2008–2081. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-018-0056-6
Greenland NY, Van Ziffle JA, Liu Y-C et al (2021) Genomic analysis in myeloid sarcoma and comparison with paired acute myeloid leukemia. Hum Pathol 108:76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2020.11.005
Paydas S, Zorludemir S, Ergin M (2006) Granulocytic sarcoma: 32 cases and review of the literature. Leuk Lymphoma 47:2527–2541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428190600967196
Byrd JC, Weiss RB, Arthur DC et al (1997) Extramedullary leukemia adversely affects hematologic complete remission rate and overall survival in patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22): results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8461. J Clin Oncol 15:466–475. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.2.466
Begna KH, Kittur J, Yui J et al (2021) De novo isolated myeloid sarcoma: comparative analysis of survival in 19 consecutive cases. Br J Haematol 195:413–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.17742
Dusenbery KE, Howells WB, Arthur DC, et al (2003) Extramedullary leukemia in children with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25:760–768. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043426-200310000-00004
Tallman MS, Wang ES, Altman JK et al (2019) Acute myeloid leukemia, version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:721–749. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0028
Chak LY, Sapozink MD, Cox RS (1983) Extramedullary lesions in non-lymphocytic leukemia: results of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 9:1173–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(83)90176-1
Bakst R, Wolden S, Yahalom J (2012) Radiation therapy for chloroma (granulocytic sarcoma). Int J Radiat Oncol 82:1816–1822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.02.057
Chen W-Y, Wang C-W, Chang C-H et al (2013) Clinicopathologic features and responses to radiotherapy of myeloid sarcoma. Radiat Oncol 8:245. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-245
Feller FM, Patel M, Devlin SM et al (2014) The addition of radiation therapy to initial treatment for extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia does not offer a survival benefit when added to chemotherapy. Blood 124:960–960. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V124.21.960.960
Bakst RL, Dabaja BS, Specht LK, Yahalom J (2018) Use of radiation in extramedullary leukemia/chloroma: guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol 102:314–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.045
Bakst RL, Tallman MS, Douer D, Yahalom J (2011) How I treat extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 118:3785–3793. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-04-347229
Imrie KR (1995) Isolated chloroma: the effect of early antileukemic therapy. Ann Intern Med 123:351. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-123-5-199509010-00005
Döhner H, Wei AH, Appelbaum FR et al (2022) Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN. Blood 140:1345–1377. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2022016867
Serrao A, Loglisci G, Salaroli A et al (2013) Azacitidine followed by radiotherapy as effective treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia with extramedullary localization. Leuk Lymphoma 54:411–412. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2012.702905
Antar A, Otrock ZK, Kharfan-Dabaja M et al (2013) Azacitidine in the treatment of extramedullary relapse of AML after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:994–995. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.256
Katagiri T, Ushiki T, Masuko M et al (2017) Successful 5-azacytidine treatment of myeloid sarcoma and leukemia cutis associated with myelodysplastic syndrome. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e7975. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007975
Okamoto H, Kamitsuji Y, Komori Y et al (2021) Durable remission of chemotherapy-refractory myeloid sarcoma by azacitidine. Tohoku J Exp Med 254:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.254.101
Sato K, Tsukada N, Inamura J et al (2021) Successful treatment of myeloid sarcoma in an elderly patient with myelodysplastic syndrome with reduced-dose azacitidine. Case Rep Hematol 2021:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6640597
Singh SN, Cao Q, Gojo I et al (2012) Durable complete remission after single agent decitabine in AML relapsing in extramedullary sites after allo-SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:1008–1009. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2011.210
Modi G, Madabhavi I, Panchal H et al (2015) Primary vaginal myeloid sarcoma: a rare case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2015:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/957490
Gornicec M, Wölfler A, Stanzel S et al (2017) Evidence for a role of decitabine in the treatment of myeloid sarcoma. Ann Hematol 96:505–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-016-2870-0
Castelli A, Mosca-Siez ML, Riccomagno P et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of decitabine against cutaneous granuloblastic sarcoma: a case report. Ann Hematol 97:1485–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-018-3314-9
Evers D, Bär BMAM, Gotthardt M, van der Velden WJFM (2018) Activity of decitabine in pericardial myeloid sarcoma. Int J Hematol 108:121–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-018-2470-y
Mohty R, El Hamed R, Brissot E et al (2023) New drugs before, during, and after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 108:321–341. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2022.280798
Chen X, Huang J, Xu N et al (2022) A phase 2 study of sorafenib combined with conventional therapies in refractory central nervous system leukemia. Cancer 128:2138–2147. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34182
Kida M, Kuroda Y, Kido M et al (2020) Successful treatment with gilteritinib for isolated extramedullary relapse of acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-ITD mutation after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Int J Hematol 112:243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-020-02855-4
Kumode T, Rai S, Tanaka H et al (2020) Targeted therapy for medullary and extramedullary relapse of FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Leuk Res Reports 14:100219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrr.2020.100219
Perrone S, Ortu La Barbera E, Viola F et al (2021) A relapsing meningeal acute myeloid leukaemia FLT3-ITD+ responding to gilteritinib. Chemotherapy 66:134–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518356
Kim RS, Yaghy A, Wilde LR, Shields CL (2020) An iridociliochoroidal myeloid sarcoma associated with relapsed acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-ITD mutation, Treated With Gilteritinib, an FLT3 Inhibitor. JAMA Ophthalmol 138:418. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0110
Shallis RM, Pucar D, Perincheri S et al (2022) Molecular testing of isolated myeloid sarcoma allows successful FLT3-targeted therapy. Ann Hematol 101:1145–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-021-04702-w
Arrigo G, D’Ardìa S, Audisio E et al (2022) Gilteritinib in isolated breast relapse of FLT3 positive acute myeloid leukemia: a case report and review of literature. Acta Haematol 145:566–570. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524878
Shatilova A, Girshova L, Zaytsev D et al (2021) The myeloid sarcoma treated by Venetoclax with hypomethylating agent followed by stem cell transplantation: rare case report. BMC Womens Health 21:184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01328-y
Mandhan N, Yassine F, Li K, Badar T (2022) Bladder myeloid sarcoma with TP53 mutated myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap syndrome: response to decitabine-venetoclax regimen. Leuk Res Reports 17:100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrr.2021.100286
De la Garza-Salazar F, Peña-Lozano SP, Gómez-Almaguer D, Colunga-Pedraza PR (2023) Orbital myeloid sarcoma treated with low-dose venetoclax and a potent cytochrome P450 inhibitor. J Oncol Pharm Pract 29:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/10781552221110826
Condorelli A, Matteo C, Leotta S et al (2022) Venetoclax penetrates in cerebrospinal fluid of an acute myeloid leukemia patient with leptomeningeal involvement. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 89:267–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-021-04356-5
Schmid C (2006) Long-term survival in refractory acute myeloid leukemia after sequential treatment with chemotherapy and reduced-intensity conditioning for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood 108:1092–1099. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2005-10-4165
Craddock C, Nagra S, Peniket A et al (2010) Factors predicting long-term survival after T-cell depleted reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 95:989–995. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2009.013920
Kogut N, Tsai N-C, Thomas SH et al (2013) Extramedullary relapse following reduced intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for adult acute myelogenous leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 54:665–668. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2012.720375
Chevallier P, Mohty M, Lioure B et al (2008) Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for myeloid sarcoma: a retrospective study from the SFGM-TC. J Clin Oncol 26:4940–4943. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.6315
Shimizu H, Saitoh T, Tanaka M et al (2012) Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for adult AML patients with granulocytic sarcoma. Leukemia 26:2469–2473. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.156
Goyal SD, Zhang M-J, Wang H-L et al (2015) Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for AML: no impact of pre-transplant extramedullary disease on outcome. Bone Marrow Transplant 50:1057–1062. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.82
Swoboda R, Labopin M, Giebel S et al (2023) Total body irradiation plus fludarabine versus busulfan plus fludarabine as a myeloablative conditioning for adults with acute myeloid leukemia treated with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. A study on behalf of the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT. Bone Marrow Transplant 58:282–287. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-022-01882-5
Dandoy CE, Davies SM, Ahn KW et al (2020) Comparison of total body irradiation versus non-total body irradiation containing regimens for de novo acute myeloid leukemia in children. Haematologica 106:1839–1845. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2020.249458
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This research was funded by AIRC 5 × 1000 called “Metastatic disease: the key unmet need in oncology” to MYNERVA project, grant number 21267 (MYeloid NEoplasms Research Venture AIRC), and by PRIN (Progetti di rilevante interesse nazionale)-MIUR called “Myeloid neoplasms: an integrated clinical, molecular and therapeutic approach” Prot. 2017WXR72T.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G. G. L. conceptualized the work and wrote the manuscript; A. M. V. wrote the manuscript and critically reviewed the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclaimer
The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, and interpretation of data; and in the writing of the present manuscript.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Patient consent
Not applicable.
Permission to reproduce material from other sources
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
G. G. L. has received fees from Novartis; A. M. V. has received speaker fees from Novartis, AOP Health, Incyte, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); and has participated to the advisory boards of Novartis, Incyte, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, GSK, BMS, and Roche.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Loscocco, G.G., Vannucchi, A.M. Myeloid sarcoma: more and less than a distinct entity. Ann Hematol 102, 1973–1984 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-023-05288-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-023-05288-1