Wenzl, Kerstin

Introduction: Non-Follicular Low-Grade B-Cell Lymphomas (LGBCL) are a subset of lymphomas that share overlapping clinical and histologic features. While most cases of LGBCL have an indolent course, some experience aggressive disease with no definitive biomarkers to identify aggressive cases at diagnosis. Significant advances have been made in the molecular classification of other lymphomas, yet molecular profiling and identification of mechanisms driving aggressive disease in LGBCL remain an unmet need. We previously used a multi-omic approach to characterize the molecular and immune landscapes of LGBCL tumors and identified a transcriptomic signature associated with cell proliferation and inferior overall survival (OS) in two independent cohorts (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.4-25.4; p < 0.001 & HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61; p = 0.005) and cases that transformed to DLBCL (Hopper et al., 2023). Here, we identify the oncoprotein DEK as a novel transcriptional regulator of this signature and use a functional genomic approach to further interrogate the role of DEK in B-cell lymphoma. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly-diagnosed/untreated LGBCL cases enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource were included in this study (SMZL = 48, NMZL = 6, LPL = 5, B-NOS = 3, EMZL = 2). Tumor RNA-seq and paired tumor-normal WES were used to assess DEK expression and identify copy number alterations (CNAs), respectively. DEK deficient (KO) cell line models were generated using CRIPSR/Cas9. DEK expression was assessed by western blot (WB) and immunofluorescence (IF) using standard techniques. Proliferation was assessed by MTT assay. Results: To identify transcriptional regulators of our previously identified signature, we used the tool MAGIC to mine publicly available ChIP-seq data and identified DEK, an oncoprotein associated with tumorigenesis and poor prognosis in several cancers, as a key regulator of genes in our signature (p = 0.008). RNA-seq indicated that high levels of DEK expression associated with inferior OS in LGBCL (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.21-7.36; p = 0.02). Additionally, we identified DEK as a target of copy number gains/amps in LGBCL (7% of cases), which corresponded to significantly higher DEK expression (p = 0.04). The association of DEK with aggressive lymphoma was confirmed when we assessed its expression in public cell line RNA-seq data and observed the highest expression in lines derived from aggressive lymphomas, which we further validated at the protein level in a panel of B-cell lymphoma cell lines by WB and IF confocal microscopy. Additionally, we detected nuclear localization of DEK, consistent with its role as a transcriptional regulator. As a model of DEK overexpression for functional characterization, we used the SUDHL6 lymphoma cell line, which has an amplification of DEK at 6p22.3 and expresses high levels of DEK protein. Using CRISPR technology, we generated DEK deficient SUDHL6 and tested the impact of loss of DEK expression. DEK KO cells proliferated significantly slower than WT SUDHL6 cells in vitro (p < 0.0001)(Panel A), indicating DEK plays a role in regulating proliferative capacity in lymphoma. To identify mechanisms responsible for reduced proliferation in DEK KOs, we assessed baseline protein expression levels of apoptosis proteins in WT versus KO cells. We found near complete abrogation of anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 and reduction of Bcl-xL expression in DEK KO cells (Panel B). These results indicate DEK may contribute to tumor proliferative capacity by regulating susceptibility to apoptosis. Conclusion: DEK has been implicated in regulation of gene expression, but its precise role has remained elusive, with little known about its role in lymphoma. Using an integrative molecular and functional genomics approach, we identified DEK as a novel oncoprotein in LGBCL that is upregulated in cases with inferior clinical outcome and is regulated by copy number gains/amps. DEK plays a role in regulating tumor proliferative capacity by altering susceptibility to apoptosis through regulation of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL. Collectively, this data suggests high-risk LGBCL tumors may enrich for cells with DEK overexpression or CNAs as a mechanism driving oncogene addiction, highlighting DEK, and its downstream targets, as potential therapeutic targets in a subset of high-risk LGBCL.

Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive lymphoid malignancy in adults. Though standard immunochemotherapy regimens can result in clinical remission and cure in a majority of patients, approximately 30% of patients are primary treatment resistant or eventually relapse (rrDLBCL), and their prognosis is very poor. Recent molecular classification by large scale genomic and transcriptomic profiling of newly diagnosed DLBCL tumors has resulted in a deeper understanding of disease drivers, however, the molecular heterogeneity of rrDLBCL is yet to be fully explored. Therefore, in this study, we used an unsupervised approach to better define transcriptional and genetic programs in rrDLBCL samples hypothesizing that molecular stratification within this high-risk group may lead to a better understanding of this disease, which remains an unmet need, and a more personalized therapeutic approach. Methods Data used in this study included RNA (n=143) and whole exome (n=126) sequencing data from available FFPE tumor samples at the time of a relapse (any line of treatment, r1-r10 relapse timepoints included in analysis, one per patient), consented to the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (n=61), banked in the Mayo Lymphoma Biobank (n=50), or consented to the CC-122-ST-001 clinical trial (n=32, NCT01421524). Unsupervised clustering was performed on protein coding gene expression values using the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) approach. NMF was carried out by performing 200 runs on cluster sizes from 2 to 6. Cell of origin (COO) was determined using the method described by Reddy et al. The tumor microenvironment was analyzed using CIBERSORTx and Lymphoma Microenvironment Classification (LME). Genetic classification was done using LymphGen. Results In order to identify unique transcriptional programs in rrDLBCL, we implemented NMF and consensus clustering to define an ideal quantity of stable patient clusters. We identified 4 rrDLBCL patient clusters (rrC1-rrC4) as the most stable solution, based on consensus clustering selection criteria of iterative NMF runs. While relapse timepoint was not associated with individual clusters, we did observe significant differences in tumor characteristics between the clusters. COO classification found that rrC1 and rrC4 were enriched for GCB-DLBCL while rrC3 was enriched for ABC-DLBCL classification (P < .001). To explore the biologic programs in each cluster, we used pathFindR, which leverages protein-protein interaction networks to identify disease related pathways, rrC1 and rrC4 were defined by pathways involved in cell cycle and mismatch repair; oxidative phosphorylation in rrC2; and MAPK and NF-kB in rrC3. Next, LME classification was done to define patterns in the tumor microenvironment and we found a significant difference between groups (P < .001), with rrC2 and rrC4 tumors enriched for a depleted TME, while rrC1 and rrC3 had a more immune rich or inflammatory TME. This was supported by CIBERSORTx analysis identifying significant differences (P > .001) in abundance of CD8 T cells, memory CD4 T cells, and M1 macrophages between clusters, with rrC4 having the lowest abundance. We then explored genetic patterns in each cluster. Gene level mutation enrichment analysis showed BCL7A mutation exclusively in C4 (6/6, P = .03). The clusters were not associated with LymphGen classification. Lastly, our recently published high risk signature classification that is associated with early clinical failure and is characterized by metabolic dysregulation, a depleted TME, T53 alterations, and poor outcome, was significantly different between the groups (P = .03) with enrichment for high-risk cases in rrC4. In summary, we show for the first time that rrDLBCL patients can be classified into four gene expression clusters that are associated with distinct pathway, TME, and genetic programs. These clusters should now be tested to learn if they can help select patients for newer therapies for rrDLBCL such as CAR-T and bispecific antibodies.

Background: Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of nonsynonymous mutations per megabase (Mb) in the coding regions of a tumor genome, has been associated with improved response to immune checkpoint blockade treatments and more broadly with overall survival (OS) in many cancers. Limited prior studies have found that TMB is higher in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) compared to many other cancers. However, only two studies have evaluated TMB and prognosis in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients. The prognostic role of TMB in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains unclear as prior studies have been limited to panel sequencing of cancer genes and/or lacked matched germline-tumor samples for filtering. Methods: We characterized TMB from whole exome sequencing (WES) in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients with matched diagnostic tumor-normal samples prior to treatment with standard immunochemotherapy (IC). Tumor DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections and germline DNA from peripheral blood. We evaluated the association between TMB and event-free (EFS) and OS using Cox regression adjusted for the international prognostic index (IPI) and other factors including cell of origin (COO), MYC double hit (DH) with BLC2 or BCL6 by FISH, and TP53 mutation status. EFS and OS were defined as time from diagnosis to earliest of treatment failure (EFS only), death, or last follow-up; EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was also modeled as a marker of early aggressive DLBCL. An optimal high/low TMB cutpoint was determined based on EFS using maximally selected rank statistics; sensitivity analyses used an 20/80 percentile to define the threshold. We also evaluated the association of driver tumor mutational load (driverTML) with EFS and OS, defined as the total number of mutations in 292 DLBCL driver genes. Results: In the analysis cohort of 394 DLBCL patients, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years (interquartile range: 56-73), 43% were female, 62.2% had IPI 0-2, and 57.4% germinal center B-cell COO. MYC was DH in 7.5% and TP53 was mutated in 16.2% of patients. Through a median follow-up of 7.5 years, there were 141 events and 122 deaths. EFS24 was achieved in 75.1% of the cohort; 5-year EFS was 69% (95% CI 64-74%) and 5-year OS was 75% (95% CI 71-80%). Median TMB in our cohort of DLBCL patients was 3.6 mutations/Mb, which was the fifth highest compared with 32 cancers in The Cancer Genome Atlas. As a continuous variable, increasing TMB (mutation/Mb) was associated with superior EFS (HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98) and OS (HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.99) after adjustment for IPI. Spline analyses confirmed linear associations of TMB with EFS and OS. The optimal modeled cutpoint based on EFS was 4.5 mutations/Mb, with 31% classified as high TMB (>4.5). No significant ( P >.05) differences were observed between high and low TMB patients with clinical (i.e., age, sex, IPI category) or molecular (cell of origin, MYC DH, TP53 mutated) factors. In Cox regression, high-TMB was significantly protective for EFS and for OS compared to low-TMB after adjustment for each clinical factor ( Figure 1), with simultaneous adjustment for all these factors associated with superior EFS (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.84) and OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.36-1.00). TMB (high/low) combined with IPI (0-2, 3-5) was significantly ( P =.001) associated with EFS in Kaplan-Meier analysis ( Figure 2). Among patients with IPI 3-5, high TMB was significantly associated with superior EFS (HR=0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.81) and OS (HR=0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.99). Among patients with IPI 0-2, we also observed longer EFS (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.34-1.11) and OS (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.32-1.20) in high TMB patients, although the associations were not statistically significant ( P >.05). In sensitivity analyses, a 20/80 percentile TMB threshold found similar results for EFS (HR=0.64, 95% CI 0.41-1.03) and OS (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.12) as in our main analyses. TMB and driverTML were significantly correlated ( R=0.65, P <10 -16) and we found similar effect sizes for EFS (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91) and OS (HR=0.55, 95% 0.27-1.13) as in our main analyses. Conclusions: In a large and well-defined cohort of IC treated DLBCL patients, we found DLBCL patients with higher TMB had superior EFS and OS after adjustment for other clinical and molecular prognostic factors, and the prognostic association for TMB was robust to threshold and gene set.

Abstract Non‐follicular low‐grade B‐cell lymphomas (LGBCL) are biologically diverse entities that share clinical and histologic features that make definitive pathologic categorization challenging. While most patients with LGBCL have an indolent course, some experience aggressive disease, highlighting additional heterogeneity across these subtypes. To investigate the potential for shared biology across subtypes, we performed RNA sequencing and applied machine learning approaches that identified five clusters of patients that grouped independently of subtype. One cluster was characterized by inferior outcome, upregulation of cell cycle genes, and increased tumor immune cell content. Integration of whole exome sequencing identified novel LGBCL mutations and enrichment of TNFAIP3 and BCL2 alterations in the poor survival cluster. Building on this, we further refined a transcriptomic signature associated with early clinical failure in two independent cohorts. Taken together, this study identifies unique clusters of LGBCL defined by novel gene expression signatures and immune profiles associated with outcome across diagnostic subtypes.

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is clinically and biologically heterogenous. Based on gene expression profiling of the tumor, DLBCL is classified into two major molecular subtypes linked to cell-of-origin (COO): germinal center (GCB) and activated B-Cell (ABC). The GCB subtype is characterized by a high prevalence of somatic mutations, particularly in apoptosis genes (e.g., BCL2) which is characteristic of follicular lymphoma (FL, another GCB lymphoma). The development of the validated NanoString gene expression test as well as immunohistochemistry markers that work in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue allows for the classification of DLBCL by COO in epidemiological studies. We hypothesized that integration of COO with germline genetics could provide insight into the underlying biology driving this heterogeneity, as well as insight into putative function of germline risk variants. Prior genome wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 7 SNPs in 6 susceptibility loci for DLBCL, including: 2p23.3 (rs79480871 NCOA1), 3q13.33 (rs9831894 CD86), 3p24.1 (rs6773363 EOMES), 6p21.33 (rs2523607 HLA-B), 6p25.3 (rs116446171 EXOC2), and 8q24.21 (rs13255292 and rs4733601 PVT1 and MYC). Two of these loci were also identified in FL GWAS (different lead SNPs): 6p21.33 (rs3130437) and 8q24.21 (rs13254990 PVT1). Additional published FL susceptibility loci include: 3q28 (rs6444305 LPP), 6p21.32 (rs9268839), 11q23.3 (rs4938573 CXCR5), 11q24.3 (rs4937362 ETS1), and 18q21.33 (rs17749561 BCL2). Here we evaluated whether the published DLBCL/FL loci differ by COO molecular subtypes. We evaluated each of the 14 DLBCL/FL SNPs by case-case (GCB vs. nonGCB DLBCL) and polytomous case-control (GCB, nonGCB, and FL vs. controls) analyses. DLBCL cases were classified into GCB vs. nonGCB based on best available data from NanoString, RNAseq, followed by the Hans algorithm. A total of 778 DLBCL cases (470 GCB and 308 nonGCB), 1,050 FL cases, and 1,383 controls were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) based on ordinal encoding of each SNP and 95% CI were calculated for each of the comparison groups. The ORs for four GWAS SNPs were significantly elevated in GCB vs. nonGCB DLBCL as well as in FL; two were FL GWAS SNPs from the HLA region (6p21.32 and 6p21.33) and the other two (BCL2 and ETS1) are important in the germinal center program. In contrast, one SNP (EXOC2) was significantly elevated in nonGCB-DLBCL and was not associated with GCB-DLBCL or FL; this SNP is also near IRF4 (MUM1), a gene important in the ABC program. For the remaining SNPs, there were suggestive associations for GCB-DLBCL and FL versus nonGCB DLBCL (CD86, CXCR5); nonGCB-DLBCL vs. GCB-DLBCL and FL (NCOA1, PVT1); and associations that showed no pattern with COO (EOMES, LPP, HLA-B and MYC). These findings provide insight into the shared pathogenesis of FL and GCB-DLBCL to inform etiologic mechanisms and risk assessment. Citation Format: Rosalie Griffin Waller, Dennis P. Robinson, Anne J. Novak, Lisa M. Rimsza, Kerstin Wenzl, Rebecca L. King, Andrew L. Feldman, Matthew J. Maurer, Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, Brian K. Link, Thomas M. Habermann, Susan L. Slager, James R. Cerhan. Etiologic heterogeneity of genetic risk for DLBCL cell-of origin molecular subtypes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 1181.

Abstract Purpose: IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) represent a disease spectrum with highly varied 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. Further investigation is warranted to shed light on the biology that may account for the clinical differences. Experimental Design: We used bone marrow (BM) clonal CD19+ and/or CD138+ sorted cells, matched BM supernatant, and peripheral blood serum from 32 patients (7 MGUS, 25 WM) to perform the first multi-omics approach including whole-exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, proteomics, metabolomics, and mass cytometry. Results: We identified three clusters with distinct pathway activation, immune content, metabolomic, and clinical features. Cluster 1 included only patients with WM and was characterized by transcriptional silencing of genes involved in cell cycle and immune response, enrichment of mitochondrial metabolism, infiltration of senescent T effector memory cells, and aggressive clinical behavior. Genetic/structural alterations of TNFAIP3 were distinct events of this cluster. Cluster 2 comprised both MGUS and WM patients with upregulation of inflammatory response, senescence and glycolysis signatures, increased activated T follicular helper and T regulatory cells, and indolent clinical behavior. Cluster 3 also included both MGUS and WM patients and exhibited intermediate features, including proliferative and inflammatory signaling, as well as glycolysis and mitochondrial metabolism. Conclusions: We have identified three distinct molecular clusters, suggesting a potential biologic classification that may have therapeutic implications.