Krull, Jordan E.

Abstract IgM MGUS and Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) represent a disease spectrum with highly dissimilar therapeutic management ranging from observation to chemoimmunotherapy. The current classification relies solely on clinical features and does not explain the heterogeneity that exists within each of these conditions. To shed light on the biology that may account for the clinical differences, we used bone marrow (BM) CD19+/CD138+ sorted cells and matched BM plasma from 32 patients (pts) (7 IgM MGUS, 25 WM) and 5 healthy controls to perform the first comprehensive multiomics approach including whole exome sequencing, RNA seq, proteomics and metabolomics. Applying principal component analysis to gene expression profiling, most of WM pts clustered together, while a small subset of them grouped separately with MGUS pts, suggesting a biologic dichotomy within WM. The healthy controls formed a distinct group from most WM and MGUS. We then applied a non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering to the gene expression data and identified three robust clusters. Cluster 1 (C1) included only WM pts, cluster 2 (C2) included both WM and MGUS pts, and cluster 3 (C3) included all controls as well as a small number of WM and MGUS pts. When mutations commonly identified in WM were analyzed, there was no difference among the three groups (excluding controls) in mutation burden of MYD88 L265P and CXCR4. Interestingly, aberrant expression of TNFAIP3 seemed a distinct feature of C1 as deletion of 6q (which encodes for TNFAIP3) and TNFAIP3 mutations were each significantly enriched in C1 (47%) compared to C2 (0%) and C3 (20%; p=0.04). Individual clusters associated with specific transcriptional signature and clinical features. While C1 displayed enrichment of cell growth, downregulation of inflammatory pathways (eg IL6 and IL8 signaling) and aggressive behavior, C2 showed increased inflammatory signaling and cell survival with indolent behavior. C3 had an intermediate feature with combined proliferative and inflammatory signatures. In accordance with the transcriptomic data, the hallmark of C1 was upregulation of proliferation-associated proteins (eg AKT, MAPK) and downregulation of inflammatory proteins (eg IL4, IL10) while the opposite was observed in C2. Once more, C3 confirmed intermediate features with combined upregulation of proliferation and inflammatory proteins. The metabolism was rewired towards fatty acid catabolism in C1, glycolysis in C2 and anabolism in C3. Accordingly, C1 showed undetectable concentration of 3-hydroxybutyric acid as opposed to C2 which had increased levels of malic and lactic acids, as end products of fatty acid oxidation and glycolysis respectively. Those metabolites had intermediate levels in C3. In conclusion, we identified three molecular clusters with distinct clinical, proteomic and metabolomic features, suggesting a potential biologic classification that may have therapeutic implications. Citation Format: Patrizia Mondello, Jonas Paludo, Joseph Novak, Kerstin Wenzl, Shahrzad Jalali, Jordan Krull, Esteban Braggio, Surendra Dasari, Michelle Manske, Jithma Abeykoon, Asher Chanan-Khan, Robert Kyle, Morie Gertz, Zhi Zhang Yang, Anne Novak, Stephen Ansell. Molecular clusters and functional drivers of IgM monoclonal gammopathies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3487.

Abstract Previous studies have found that the prevalence of subtypes of T cells may be associated with patient outcomes, but a comprehensive analysis of the immune profile in the TM of FL has not been done. In the present study, we identified groups of FL patients with discretely unique TMEs and determined whether the T-cell phenotypes in the TME differed among groups. Using a cohort of 82 FL patients with biopsy specimens collected before treatment, we defined the type of TME based on the content of major lineages (T, B, monocytes/macrophages and NK cells) determined by CyTOF analysis. Hierarchical clustering of this cohort stratified patients into 4 groups with different TME: group 1 (G1) included patients with a high percentage of monocyte/macrophages/NK cells; patients from G2 and G3 were enriched for intratumoral T and B cells, respectively. Patients with intermediate numbers of T and B cells were included in G4. CITRUS analysis revealed that T-cell clusters with phenotypes expressing KLRG1, CD57, PD-1dim and rich in TEMRA cells were significantly more abundant in G1 when compared to G2, G3 or G4. In contrast, T-cell clusters with phenotypes containing CD127, CD45RA, CCR7 or PD-1high cells were significantly less abundant in G1 when compared to other groups. When compared to G3 or G4, 2 classes of T cell clusters, all from CD4+ T cells, were significantly more (CD127+KLRG1-) or less (CD57+PD-1high) abundant in G2, respectively. Clusters with a phenotype rich in short-lived effector cells (SLEC) (from CD8+) were upregulated in G3 when compared to G4. These results suggest that patient groups with distinct TME exhibited variable T-cell phenotypes. To determine the role of T-cell differentiation in predicting patient outcome in FL, we identified T-cell subsets using tSNE plots based on the expression of T-cell maturation markers. We identified 18 subsets (S1-S18) of T cells (11 from CD4, 6 from CD8 and 1 from CD4-CD8-) in each sample. Four subsets - S4 (CD4+TN), S5 (CD4+TCM), S7 (CD8+TN) and S10 (CD8+MEPCs) - were considered to be naïve cells or cells in the early stages of differentiation. Four additional subsets - S8 (CD57+TFH), S9 (CD4+TEXH), S13 (CD8+SLECs) and S17 (CD4+PD-1+Treg) - were memory cells with expression of surface markers indicting late-stage differentiation. We found that the 4 subsets (S4: p=0.08, S5: p=0.01, S7: p=0.04 and S10: p<0.01) with an early-stage phenotype were associated with a favorable clinical outcome. In contrast, subsets (S8: p=0.02, S9: p=0.04, S13: p=0.07 and S17: p=0.06) with a late-stage differentiation phenotype had an unfavorable survival. Supporting this finding, we observed that increased numbers of CD45RA+ T cells correlated with a favorable survival. These results indicate that the differentiation stage may determine the role of T cells in predicting patient outcome in FL. Citation Format: Zhi-Zhang Yang, Hyo Jin Kim, Hongyan Wu, Xinyi Tang, Jordan Krull, Patrizia Mondello, Jose Villasboas, Anne Novak, Stephen Ansell. T-cell phenotype and differentiation vary in the tumor microenvironment of follicular lymphoma and are associated with patient outcome [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2529.

Abstract Introduction: Low-grade B-cell lymphomas (LGBCL), aside from follicular lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, account for approximately 10% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and consist of several subtypes. While a majority of LGBCL cases have an overall favorable prognosis, we have previously shown that cases who have an event (relapse or progression, transformation, or re-treatment) within 24 months of diagnosis (EFS24) have an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to those achieving EFS24 (Tracy et al., AJH 2019;94:658-66). However, the underlying biological characteristics associated with early failure and aggressive disease across LGBCL subtypes are unknown. In this study, we used matched transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiling data from LGBCL cases, the largest cohort to date, and asked whether there were unique biological phenotypes across different LGBCL subtypes and whether we could identify signatures associated with aggressive LGBCL. Validation of the prognostic utility of this signature was performed on a previously published, independent cohort of 63 pre-treatment LGBCL cases. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly diagnosed LGBCL patients from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence were included in this study (SMZL (n = 48), NMZL (n = 6), LPL (n = 5), B-NOS (n = 3), EMZL (n = 2)). RNA sequencing (RNAseq) data from 61 LGBCL tumors and 5 benign CD19+CD27+ memory B samples was subjected to NMF clustering to define groups. Differential expression and pathway analysis were used to identify biological characteristics of each cluster. CIBERSORT was used to identify immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 61 tumor-normal pairs. Singscore was used to assign a single score per patient representing gene expression of the survival-associated transcriptomic signature identified in this study. Results: NMF analysis of RNAseq data identified 5 clusters of patients, denoted LGBCL1-5 (Fig 1A). Patients from the same diagnostic subtype did not exclusively cluster together, with all LGBCL clusters comprised of patients from multiple subtypes (Fig 1B). Exploring the association between patient cluster and outcome, we observed significantly inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.01-4.98) and overall survival (OS) (HR 5.59; 95% CI 2.00-15.63) in LGBCL5 patients compared to LGBCL1-4 (Fig 1C). In addition, 80% of the transformation cases in our cohort were classified as LGBCL5 (Fig 1D). Differential expression and pathway analysis showed distinct processes significantly upregulated in each cluster (FDR < 0.05), with LGBCL5 demonstrating enrichment of cell cycle and mitosis pathways. CIBERSORT identified increased immune cell content in LGBCL3 and LGBCL5 compared to other clusters, with high frequencies of mast cells in both (p = 0.0002), increased CD8 T cells in LGBCL3 (p < 0.0001), and increased T follicular helper cells in LGBCL5 (p = 0.004). WES identified previously reported alterations in NOTCH, NFkB, and chromatin remodeling pathways and novel variants in LGBCL, including mutations in HNRNPK, CLTC, HLA-A, HLA-B and HLA-C. Assessment of alterations by cluster showed significant enrichment of TNFAIP3 (OR 5.54; 95% CI 1.20-28.14) and BCL2 alterations (OR 5.49; 95% CI 1.07-32.02) in LGBCL5 cluster. Finally, we identified a cell cycle-related transcriptomic signature of 108 genes upregulated in LGBCL5 and EFS24 failure cases. Cases with high expression of this signature showed significantly inferior EFS (HR 14.25; 95% CI 4.90-41.38) and OS (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.40-25.44) compared to cases with low expression in our discovery cohort. This observation was reproduced in an independent validation cohort, where patients with high expression of this signature demonstrated significantly inferior EFS (HR 5.70; 95% CI 1.49-21.79) and OS (HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61). Conclusions: In this study, we are the first to define mechanisms of pathogenesis in LGBCL with shared transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiles present across LGBCL subtypes. We then further defined a gene expression signature associated with inferior patient outcome, with application of this signature to an independent validation cohort demonstrating proof of concept and utility of this signature as a prognostic marker in LGBCL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

Abstract The tumor microenvironment plays a crucial role in mediating the tumor immune response, thereby affecting patient outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL). Using CyTOF, we analyzed single cell suspensions created from pre-treatment biopsies in a cohort of 82 FL patients and retrospectively extracted patient clinical parameters. Hierarchical analysis of the tumor microenvironment composition stratified these patients into 4 groups: group 1 represents patients with high percentage of monocyte/macrophages/NK cells; patients from group 2 and 3 are rich of intratumoral T and B cells, respectively. Patients with intermediate number of T and B cells are classed into group 4. Intratumoral T cells from these 4 groups exhibited distinct phenotypical characteristics. Group 1 was enriched with KLRG1 +CD8 + T cells, while group 4 showed increased number of CXCR3 - T EM and CD4 + T N cells. Patients from group 2 and 3 featured with increased number of ICOS + T reg cells and CD57 + T FH cells, respectively. We observed that higher numbers of T cells significantly correlated with early disease stage, lack of B-symptoms, event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) and a favorable overall and EFS survival in patients with histological grade 1 and 2. However, this association was not seen in patients with histological grade 3a and b, suggesting that T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity is preserved in low grade patients, but overridden in higher grade patients. CITRUS analysis revealed that a cluster that is CD57 + and PD-1 high was significantly more abundant in patients who had disease progression than patients who had a complete response to therapy, suggesting a role of CD57 + T FH cells in promoting malignant cell growth in FL. Consistent with this finding, we observed that higher number of CD57 + T FH cells correlated with an inferior survival in FL. Using CITE-seq technology, we found that CD57 + T FH cells exhibited a substantially different transcriptome when compared to CD57 - T FH cells. Genes that were differentially upregulated in CD57 + T FH cells when compared to CD57 - T FH cells included genes involved in cell survival, compromised inflammatory response, and metabolism activation including GZMK, CCL4, CST7, DUSP2, LGALS3, CYTOR, CHI3L2, SYNE2, CXCL13, CD27 and FABP5. Taken together, our results indicate different tumor microenvironments among FL patient groups that is associated with variable T-cell phenotype. We found that CD57 + T FH cells play an important role in predicting disease progression and patient prognosis in FL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) exhibits significant clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic heterogeneity. Our understanding of FL biology and molecular classifications of FL, to date, has largely been driven by pathologic classification (Grade 1-3b), genetic classification (m7-FLIPI), or gene expression profiling (IR-1/2; Huet-23), along with limited studies on small cohorts or targeted panels. In order to further understand the biological underpinnings and complexity of FL, large-scale and integrated whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) studies are needed. Using a highly-annotated cohort of 93 FL tumors with matched RNAseq, WES, and CyTOF data, we have explored the transcriptomic signature of purified FL B cells and identified unique molecular subsets that are defined by distinct pathway activation, immune content, and genomic signatures. Methods: Frozen cell suspensions from 93 untreated FL (Grade 1-3b) patients' tumor biopsies, enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, were used for the study. DNA was isolated from whole tumor cell suspensions, and RNA was isolated from both whole tumor and B cell-enriched cell suspensions. RNAseq and WES were performed in the Mayo Clinic Genome Analysis Core. RNAseq and WES data were processed using a standard pipeline and novel driver genes were identified using Chasm+ driver analysis. Copy number variants were identified from WES data using GISTIC 2.0. NMF clustering and single sample gene set testing for B cell lineage and tumor microenvironment (TME) signatures were performed in R using the NMF and singscore packages. Results: Unsupervised clustering of RNAseq data identified three distinct expression programs which separated patient B cell samples into 3 groups: Group 1 (G1, n=20), Group 2 (G2, n=24), Group 3 (G3, n=43). While no clinical attributes were defined by any single group, G1 consisted of cases that had less aggressive characteristics (63% Stage I-II, 79% FLIPI 0-1). To identify unique transcriptional pathways driving the three expression programs, we scored gene level contributions to NMF expression programs and employed gene set enrichment analysis. This revealed significant pathway association with type-I IFN signaling (G1), DNA repair and stress response (G2), and epigenetic modulation (G3) as differentiating programs between the 3 groups (FDR q<0.001). VIPER master regulator activity inferencing revealed that these pathways were likely being controlled by differential activity in NF-kB, IRFs, STAT1, BCL6, and FOXO1. Each program significantly enriched for, but were not defined by, portions of specific germinal center programs, such as pre-memory (G1), light-zone-to-dark-zone transition (G2), and a pre-light-zone intermediate (G3). We next assessed the connection between B cell programs and the tumor microenvironment (TME) using available paired CyTOF data on 67 cases, which revealed an active TME in G1, with an abundance of CD8 T cell and NK cell populations, a wide variety of immune content in G2 that consisted mostly of Tfh and myeloid cells, and a poorly populated immune compartment in G3 compared to G1 and G2. Finally, somatic driver mutations and copy number alterations from WES were identified and associated with the three clusters. The three groups distinguished themselves by significant enrichment of copy number alterations (TNFAIP3-loss , 1q23-gain, 1q32-gain) in G2, while 10q-loss and mutations in BCL2 and chromatin modifiers (KMT2D and CREBBP) enriched in G3. G1, overall, had lower alteration burden and had weak associations with any specific alterations, suggesting an alternative mechanism for driving the G1 program. Conclusion: In this study, we have identified three unique FL tumor B cell groups, defined by specific transcriptional programs. Pathways such as inflammation, DNA damage response, and chromatin modification contribute most to the differences between B cell samples and group membership. Additionally, each program associated with specific genetic events as well as TME composition, highlighting potential drivers of these B cell states. This study improves the understanding of the mechanisms driving FL tumors and motivates further investigation into transcriptional consequences of genetic events as well as potential tumor intrinsic factors that may influence the TME. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND Cytometry by time‐of‐flight (CyTOF) or mass cytometry is a form of flow cytometry. CyTOF uses antibodies bound to metal isotopes as tags instead of fluorochromes normally used in standard flow cytometry. These nonradioactive isotopes of heavy metals allow mass cytometry to analyze up to 50 different parameters without significant signal overlap. Due to the accuracy of mass cytometry, researches are able to investigate multiple cell markers at once, which is not possible with standard fluorescent flow cytometry (FFC). CyTOF works by feeding a cell sample tagged with conjugated antibodies into a nebulizer where cells are aerosolized. The aerosolized samples pass through an argon plasma torch and become an ionized atom cloud. This cloud passes through a quadrupole where low mass ions are filtered out resulting in a cloud enriched for the heavy metal reporter tags. The tags enter the time‐of‐flight chamber and further separated by mass as they reach the detector AIMS The main aim of this project was to optimize the stimulation conditions that are best suited for use with a CyTOF T cell functional panel. This would provide a method for decreased cell loss in sample preparation. METHODS T‐cell‐enriched samples underwent stimulation using 4 different condition: 4‐hour stimulation of PMA/Ionomycin, 1:1 ratio of Dynabeads at 24h, 48h, and 72h. Brefeldin A was placed in every well containing cells to act as transport inhibitor. FFC was used to test cell recovery and cell death between stimulation techniques and stimulation strength was observed using CyTOF. RESULTS There was no significant difference in 4h unstimulated cells and 24h unstimulated cells in both cell recovery and cell viability. However, comparing the PMA/Ionomycin unstimulated cells to the 4h stimulated cells did produce a significant decrease in cell recovery and cell death. Because this technique is a non‐physiological stimulation, this result was expected. The use of FFC also allowed us to see the significant loss of cells in recovery and death after 24h stimulation with the 48h and 72h Dynabead assays. The “sledge hammer” effect is clearly visible with the PMA/Ionomycin with 2.73% of IL‐4 cells being stimulated compared to only 0.28% in the 24h Dynabead sample. This trend of PMA/Ionomycin producing a strong stimulation signal was a trend. CONCLUSIONS We determined that T cell culture with Brefeldin A beyond 24 h significantly decreases cell viability and recovery. In observing the stimulation for Dynabeads at 24h, the cells are not directly affected while PMA/Ionomycin does cause a significant loss in cell viability and total cells recovered. PMA/Ionomycin is capable of stimulating the production of all measurable cytokines, even rare populations such as IL‐10‐ or IL‐6‐producing T cells. Dynabeads resemble a more physiological stimulation condition and is able to activate all T cell subsets except IL‐6‐producing T cells. Support or Funding Information The Berner Charitable and Scholarship Foundation, Funded by the Immune Monitoring Core and The Division of Hematology This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Background: Follicular Lymphoma (FL) is the second most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and presents with significant clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic heterogeneity. Despite the name and defining microanatomic location, the genetic and molecular identity and pathogenesis of the FL tumor cell is largely uncharacterized. Prior clinical and molecular classifications of FL have been primarily driven by pathologic classification (Grade 1-3b), genetic classification (M7-FLIPI), or gene expression profiling (IR-1/2). Using a unique cohort of 93 FL tumors, we have explored the transcriptomic signature of purified FL B cells, along with their matched whole tumor, and identified unique molecular subsets which are defined by distinct pathway activation, immune content, and genomic signatures identified through whole exome sequencing (WES). Methods: Frozen tumor biopsies from 93 untreated FL (Grade 1-3b) patients enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE were used for the study. DNA was isolated from whole tumor cell suspensions and RNA was isolated from both whole tumor and B cell enriched cell suspensions. RNA sequencing (RNAseq) and WES was performed in the Mayo Clinic Genome Analysis Core. RNAseq and WES data were processed using the Mayo Clinic standard pipeline and novel driver genes were identified using 20/20+ driver analysis. Copy number variants were identified using GISTIC 2.0. NMF clustering and single sample gene set testing, for B cell lineage and tumor microenvironment (TME) signatures, was performed in R using the NMF and SingScore packages. Results: NMF consensus clustering of FL B cell RNAseq data identified two distinct subsets, C1 (n=32) and C2 (n=57). Clinically, C1 was associated with being FL grade 3 (p<0.001) and more aggressive therapy (e.g. immunochemotherapy) at diagnosis while other clinical factors were similar between the groups. To determine the biologic underpinnings that drove the NMF analysis, the top NMF metagenes were incorporated (n=389 for C1 and n=293 for C2) for GO analysis. Among those genes were AICDA, IRF4, and EZH2 in C1, and BCL2 in C2. Additionally, we identified significant gene set enrichment with NMF metagenes and calculated differential gene set expression comparing C1, C2, and normal B cells (n=5). Together, these analyses suggest C1 displays significantly (p<0.05) enhanced DNA replication and metabolic activity, whereas C2 displays significantly enhanced cytoskeleton rearrangement, repressed inflammatory cytokine signaling, and NF-kB activity. Based on recent scRNAseq data suggesting that FL derives from distinct germinal center B cells, the B lineage difference between C1 and C2 was explored. Both subgroups were heterogeneous for dark (DZ), intermediate (INT), light (LZ) zones, and plasmablast (PBL) gene signatures. When compared to benign B cell samples, C1 was enriched for a pre-PBL (p<0.01), and C2 for an INT phenotype related to a LZ signature (p<0.01). To define if a genomic signature was associated with C1 and C2, mutations and copy number variants (>5% frequency) were examined. TNFAIP3, TP53, and BCL6 alterations were enriched in C1 samples, whereas C2 associated with alterations in BCL2, KMT2D, CREBBP, REL, and MYC. Finally, B cell clusters were analyzed for TME signatures. C1 samples displayed significant enrichment of macrophage, cytotoxic cell, gamma-delta-Tcell, and endothelial cell TME elements (p<0.05) consistent with an inflamed/hot tumor. In contrast, C2 samples exhibited significantly lower signatures (p<0.05) in all entities except for the fibroblast signature, compared to C1 and normal, consistent with an immune desert phenotype. Conclusion: Our results suggest that B cells from FL patients display two distinct transcriptomic signatures. C1 identifies an immunologically active tumor, driven by TNFAIP3 alterations, with pre-PBL characteristics, DNA replication and repair, inflammatory cytokine secretion/signaling, and hyper-metabolic characteristics. C2 identifies an immunologically quiet tumor, driven by alterations in BCL2 and chromatin modifiers, with an intermediate GC phenotype, repressed cytokine signaling, and active cell cycle progression and cytoskeleton rearrangement. This study improves our understanding of the mechanisms driving FL tumors and motivates further investigation into the relationship between tumor intrinsic factors that may influence the TME. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Ansell:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: T-cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (TIGIT), a member of the immune checkpoint family, is important in normal T-cell biology. However, the phenotypical profile and clinical relevance of TIGIT in follicular lymphoma is largely unknown. Experimental Design: Biopsy specimens from a cohort of 82 patients with follicular lymphoma were analyzed using mass cytometry to explore the phenotype and biological and clinical significance of TIGIT+ T cells. Results: TIGIT is highly expressed on intratumoral T cells and its expression alters T-cell phenotype in follicular lymphoma. TIGIT is abundantly expressed on Treg cells, resulting in an enhanced suppressive property. TIGIT expression on non-Treg/TFH T cells defines a population that exhibits an exhausted phenotype. Clinically, increased numbers of TIGIT+ T cells are associated with inferior patient outcomes and poor survival. We observe that anti–PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab alters the phenotype of TIGIT+ T subsets and identifies a role for CD28 expression on TIGIT+ T cells in treatment response. Conclusions: The current study provides a comprehensive analysis of the phenotypic profile of intratumoral TIGIT+ T subsets and their prognostic relevance in follicular lymphoma. Inhibition of TIGIT signaling may be an additional mechanism to prevent T-cell suppression and exhaustion in B-cell lymphoma.

Introduction: Current classifications of low-grade B-cell lymphomas (LGL), including splenic marginal zone lymphomas (SMZL), nodal marginal zone lymphomas (NMZL), and Lymphoplasmacytic lymphomas (LPL) are based on a mixture of clinical features and morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic findings from the tumor biopsy specimen. While this approach to classification makes pathologic diagnosis more precise, the corresponding clinical impact for the timing and choice of treatment is limited, and differentiating between cases can be challenging. Although LGL are considered indolent and the 10-year overall survival (OS) is about 80%, 70% of cases will eventually require treatment and approximately 30% of patients display a more aggressive phenotype and have a poor prognosis. Consequently, further investigations into the driving genetic, biological, and immune mechanisms of LGL are essential for early identification of high-risk patients and design of personalized treatments. Materials and Methods: RNA-seq was performed on 63 newly diagnosed LGL patient samples from the Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa Lymphoma SPORE: SMZL (N=48), NMZL (N=6), LPL (N=5), MALT (N=2), and BCL (N=2) as well as 5 normal memory B cell controls (CD19+CD27+). For identification of biologic clusters, filtered RNA-seq data was analyzed using the Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) clustering tool from the Broad Institute against the normal samples. Each cluster was analyzed for differential gene expression. This analysis generated cluster-specific T values for each gene. Genes that were significantly associated with a cluster (FDR<0.05) were analyzed for genetic ontology. Cibersort was used to deconvolute the tumor microenvironment (TME). We performed whole exome sequencing (WES) analyses on 60/63 matched LGL to characterize mutations and copy number alterations. Results: WES revealed the presence of previously reported mutations in genes such as MYD88, SPEN, NOTCH, and KLF2 as well as copy number alterations 7q31.2, BCL6, TNFAIP3, and BCL2. NMF clustering of RNA-seq data resulted in a best fit of 5 clusters, named LGL1 through LGL4 and "Normals". Pathologic subtypes were not exclusive to a specific cluster. Differential RNA expression analysis resulted in gene sets that were differentially expressed in each cluster. A cluster signature of the top 1% of associated genes (N=94) was created for each. LGL1 genes were associated with higher BCR signaling. LGL2 was characterized by regulatory dysfunction, particularly concerning mitochondrial integrity. LGL3 genes were associated with high TME and NOTCH and STAT signaling components. Specifically, LGL3 was associated with high CD8+ T-cell and M2 macrophage TME presence. LGL4 was distinguished by the presence of aggressive genetic programs related to B-cell activation such as NF-kB and IRF4. Consequently, LGL4 patients had significantly poorer rates of event-free survival (EFS) (P=0.029) and OS (P=0.006) when compared against the other groups. The top 1% gene signature (N=94) was next validated against an independent cohort of 84 LGL samples with gene expression data (SMZL [N=34], NZML [N=24], and LPL [N=24]). A similar cluster pattern emerged, with pathological subtypes distributing across LGL classifications based on respective transcriptomic signatures. Association of DNA variants within each cluster was also analyzed, but due to the low frequency of genomic variants detected in LGL, nothing was significantly associated. However, we did see an enrichment of BCL2, BCL6, and TNFAIP3 alterations in LGL4 and an overall lower driver gene mutation frequency in LGL2. Conclusions: Gaining a greater understanding of LGL based on their genetic, biologic, and immune profiles will establish a valuable platform for clinicians to identify high-risk cases and make better therapeutic decisions. Using a large cohort of well-annotated cases we identify novel clusters of LGL that present unique genomic and clinical profiles. Our study lays the groundwork for a precision therapy approach in LGL in which DNA or RNA profiles can be used to identify patients early in treatment who may not benefit from the current standard of care and who would benefit from closer monitoring and targeted agents. Disclosures Anagnostou: American Society of Hematology, Mayo Clinic/Iowa Lymphoma SPORE, Mayo Clinic Immune Monitoring Core, Mayo Clinic Hematology Small Grant: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. Cerhan:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding.