Comparison of myeloid neoplasms with nonclassic 3q26.2/MECOM versus classic inv(3)/t(3;3) rearrangements reveals diverse clinicopathologic features, genetic profiles, and molecular mechanisms of MECOM activation

Abstract MECOM rearrangements are recurrent in myeloid neoplasms and associated with poor prognosis. However, only inv(3)(q21q26.2) and t(3;3)(q21;q26.2), the classic MECOM rearrangements resulting in RPN1‐MECOM rearrangement with Mecom overexpression and GATA2 haploinsufficiency, define the distinct subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and serve as presumptive evidence for myelodysplastic syndrome based on the current World Health Organization classification. Myeloid neoplasms with nonclassic 3q26.2/ MECOM rearrangements have been found to be clinically aggressive, but comparative analysis of clinicopathologic and genomic features is limited. We retrospectively studied cohorts of myeloid neoplasms with classic and nonclassic MECOM rearrangements. Cases with classic rearrangements consisted predominantly of AML, often with inv(3) or t (3;3) as the sole chromosome abnormality, whereas the group of nonclassic rearrangements included a variety of myeloid neoplasms, often with complex karyotype without TP53 mutations and similarly dismal overall survival. Immunohistochemistry revealed Mecom protein overexpression in both groups, but overexpression in cases with nonclassic rearrangements was mediated through a mechanism other than GATA2 distal enhancer involvement typical for classic rearrangement. Our results demonstrated that myeloid neoplasms with nonclassic 3q26.2/ MECOM rearrangements encompass a diverse group of diseases with poor clinical outcome, overexpression of Mecom protein as a result of the nonclassic mechanism of MECOM activation.