Duployez, Nicolas

Abstract Introduction Blast transformation (BT) in CMML occurs in 15-30% of patients (pts) with a median overall survival (OS) <6 months (mo). While clonal evolution can be observed, biological mechanisms of BT remain unknown for many pts. Using paired samples from chronic phase (CP) and at BT, this study defines the cytogenetic and molecular landscape of BT-CMML. Methods BT-CMML pts from Mayo Clinic (n=153, 31%), MD Anderson (n=195, 40%), and 7 centers of the Groupe Francophone des Myélodysplasies (n=145, 29%) were included after IRB approval. ICC 2022 criteria defined CMML and AML. Pt data were collected at initial diagnosis or referral at CP and again at BT. Clonal dominance was inferred from a natural log-fold difference of mutation variant allele fractions (VAF). OS was censored at allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). Single-cell multiomic analyses used the Tapestri platform (Mission Bio). Statistics used R. Results Among 1,883 cases of CMML with a median follow up of 96 mo, 493 (26%) underwent BT. The median age at CP and BT was 69 and 71 years, respectively. BT-CMML pts were predominantly male (69%) and had proliferative CMML (53%) or CMML-1 (69%) in CP; 39% and 33% were considered high-risk by CPSS-Mol and BLAST-Mol criteria, respectively. The median time to BT was 16 mo (interquartile range 7-35 mo) and was not different in males vs females (p=0.60). Compared to their CP parameters (p<0.001 each), pts at BT had lower median hemoglobin (10.8 vs 9.2 g/dL) and platelets (100 vs 44 x109/L) but higher leukocytes (13.9 vs 16.3 x109/L), peripheral blasts (0% vs 14%), and bone marrow blasts (6% vs 32%). Blasts exhibited mostly monocytic (57%) or immature myeloid (40%) differentiation. Abnormal karyotypes (AK) were more prevalent at BT (25% vs 62%, p<0.001). Among 318 pts with paired karyotype data, 221 (69%) had a normal karyotype (NK) in CP, of which 123 (56%) remained normal at BT and 98 (44%) acquired new abnormalities. Conversely, 97 (31%) pts had an AK in CP, of which 67 (69%) acquired abnormalities or increased clonal metaphases (6%), 23 (24%) remained stable, and 7 (7%) reverted to a NK at BT. Overall, 46% acquired and 8% lost a clonal cytogenetic abnormality, while 46% remained unchanged. Numeric (37%) and structural (30%) changes were most common. Complex (12% vs 3%) and monosomal (5% vs 2%) karyotypes were more frequent at BT than in CP. Only 6 (2%) pts acquired an AML-defining rearrangement at BT. Mutational data were available for 248 paired cases. The number of somatic mutations was higher at BT (median 3 vs 4, p<0.001). Mutations in RUNX1 (27% vs 39%), NRAS (23% vs 33%), KRAS (11% vs 17%), FLT3 (6% vs 15%), NPM1 (0% vs 11%), IDH2 (5% vs 11%), and CEBPA (3% vs 10%) were more frequent at BT (all p<0.05). At BT, the average VAF of the dominant clone increased in 32%, decreased in 35%, and remained unchanged (delta ≤5%) in 33%. The most frequent dominant clones both in CP and at BT had mutations in TET2 (8% vs 4%) or co-dominant mutations involving SRSF2-TET2 (7% vs 3%). Mutational clonal evolution was observed in 72%, with mutations gained in 45% and lost from the dominant clone in 19%. The most gained mutations at BT were in NRAS (15%) and RUNX1 (13%). Single cell proteogenomic analyses in 4 selected CP and BT pts shed light on the impact of NRAS and RUNX1 mutations on clonal hierarchies and differentiation. Among 196 fully evaluable cases, a new cytogenetic and/or molecular aberration was uniquely gained in 106 (54%) cases and lost in 9 (5%), with 40 (20%) both gaining and losing a genetic alteration. Forty-one (21%) patients had no identifiable genetic change between CP and BT, suggesting driver alterations outside of that detected by routine analyses. Median OS was 31 mo from CMML diagnosis and 5.6 mo from BT. Compared to supportive care, treatment in CP did not prolong median time to BT (14 vs 17 mo, p=0.91) or OS (35 vs 29 mo, p=0.05), regardless of intensity. After BT, median OS was 1.2 mo with supportive care (n=83), 8.7 mo with a hypomethylating agent (HMA, n=39), 10 mo with HMA plus venetoclax (n=37), 7.8 mo with chemotherapy (n=91), and 31 mo in pts who underwent alloSCT (n=57). Conclusions In this large BT-CMML cohort, cytogenetic (46% gained, 8% lost) or mutational (45% gained, 19% lost) driver events were identified in 79% of pts, with 21% having no identifiable changes by conventional testing. Whole genome/transcriptome analyses are underway in this subgroup to identify novel drivers of BT.

Abstract Lineage switch (LS), defined as the immunophenotypic transformation of acute leukemia, has emerged as a mechanism of relapse after antigen-targeted immunotherapy, which is associated with dismal outcomes. Through an international collaborative effort, we identified cases of LS after a host of antigen-targeted therapies (eg, CD19, CD22, CD38, and CD7), described how LS was diagnosed, reviewed treatment approaches, and analyzed overall outcomes for this form of postimmunotherapy relapse. Collectively, 75 cases of LS were evaluated, including 53 (70.7%) cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) transforming to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 17 (22.7%) cases of B-ALL transforming to mixed phenotypic acute leukemia (MPAL)/acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (ALAL), and 5 (6.7%) cases of rare LS presentation (ie, T-cell ALL to AML). An additional 10 cases with incomplete changes in immunophenotype, referred to as “lineage drift” were also described. With a primary focus on the 70 cases of LS from B-ALL to AML or MPAL/ALAL, LS emerged at a median of 1.5 months (range, 0-36.5) after immunotherapy, with 81.4% presenting with LS within the first 6 months from the most proximal immunotherapy. Although most involved KMT2A rearrangements (n = 45, 64.3%), other rare cytogenetic and/or molecular alterations were uniquely observed. Treatment outcomes were generally poor, with remission rates of <40%. The median overall survival after LS diagnosis was 4.8 months. Outcomes were similarly poor for those with rare immunophenotypes of LS or lineage drift. This global initiative robustly categorizes lineage changes after immunotherapy and, through enhanced understanding, establishes a foundation for improving outcomes of LS.

Introduction: Lineage switch (LS) refers to the transformation of acute leukemia from one cell lineage to another (e.g., lymphoid (ALL) to myeloid (AML)). This rare phenomenon, distinct from treatment induced malignancy (i.e., t-AML) and mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), is increasingly being observed following cell surface antigen targeting. Given challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of LS, Project EVOLVE was developed to globally identify cases of LS following immunotherapy. Methods: A protocol and data collection form for this IRB exempt study was widely disseminated to capture deidentified LS case information across multiple centers and cancer consortia. This included collection of data from published reports of LS, with authors contacted to obtain additional information. For this analysis, LS was defined by the emergence of cell-surface markers warranting reclassification of the original leukemia as a different lineage derivation based on the immunophenotype, including cases of AML emerging alongside the original ALL. “Confirmed” LS cases included those where retention of original cytogenetic or molecular aberrations and/or the clonal immunoglobulin rearrangement patterns were verified to confirm the clonal relationship. “Suspected” LS cases included those where samples to confirm clonality marker retention could not be obtained, but the clinical presentation was consistent with LS. The term “transition” was applied when immunophenotypic shifts were transient. Cases with new cytogenetic abnormalities unrelated to the original diagnosis and compatible with t-AML were excluded. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. Data cut-off was July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 58 cases were identified, including 19 cases referenced in prior publications. Of the 58, 11 cases were excluded from this initial analysis, including: 4 cases of t-AML, 2 cases of T-ALL to AML, and 5 “transition” cases. Collectively, 47 cases of LS (43 “confirmed”; 4 “suspected”), spanning across 3 continents and 8 countries, were analyzed. (Fig. 1A) Cases included transition from B-ALL to AML in 36 (76.6%) and to MPAL/biphenotypic/ambiguous lineage in 11 (23.4%). Two likely had MPAL at diagnosis and a third with chronic myeloid leukemia. The median age at initial diagnosis was 8.4 years (range, 1 day-76.5 years); median age at LS presentation was 11.0 years (range 0.4-77.3 years). Twenty-three (48.9%) were male and 19 (40.4%) had prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Baseline cytogenetics showed KMT2A rearrangement in 27 (57.4%). Baseline myeloid antigen co-expression was seen in 22 of 23 patients with submitted data, but variation in degree of expression across patients and antigens was substantial. The most proximal immunotherapy prior to development of LS was CAR T-cells in 23 (48.9%) and blinatumomab in 24 (51.1%). The median time from the most proximal immunotherapy to development of LS was 1.6 months (range, 7 days-36.5 months). In 7 (29.2%) patients receiving blinatumomab, LS developed during the infusion. LS presented as isolated marrow relapse in 27 (57.4%), isolated CNS in 2 (4.3%), isolated non-CNS extramedullary disease in 3 (6.4%), combined relapse in 14 (29.8%) and unreported in 1. First line treatment for LS was chemotherapy induction in 31 (66.0%), palliative care/no therapy in 8 (17.0%), and alternative therapies in the remaining 8 (17.0%). In 35 (74.5%) patients, remission induction was the goal of first line therapy. Fifteen (31.9%) achieved a complete remission (CR) of whom 2 were treated with palliative intent. Across all patients, 8 (17.0%) are alive in remission, the longest being 4.7 years from LS diagnosis; 2 (4.3%) are alive with active LS and 37 (78.7%) died from LS, their original disease, or complications of treatment of LS (Fig 1B). For those alive in CR (n=8), 7 (87.5%) proceeded to a consolidative SCT for treatment of LS and 1 patient, an octogenarian remains in remission after AML directed therapy. Conclusions: LS is emerging as an important mechanism of immune escape following immunotherapy. Project EVOLVE provides the largest dataset of patients with LS to date. This systematic, international effort reveals substantial complexity and variability in diagnosing and managing LS. Unfortunately, outcomes following LS are grim, underscoring the critical need to identify risk factors of and optimal therapies for this leukemia transformation.

Abstract Background: It has been known for approximately 19 years that germline mutations in RUNX1, lead to familial platelet disorder with predisposition to myeloid malignancy (FPD-MM, OMIM 601399). Since that time researchers have identified a broad range of different RUNX1 mutations, in over 100 families. In large families, the diagnosis of malignancy shows variable penetrance among family members with the same mutation; some carriers of RUNX1 mutations do not develop malignancy. The causes of this heterogeneity are currently not known, complicating counselling and risk analysis for individual carriers. Recent advances in genetic sequencing technology applied by many FPD-MM research groups around the world have highlighted their value in understanding the somatic genetic changes that are associated with development of malignancies in germline RUNX1 mutation carriers. Collectively this information could lead to powerful insights essential for more precise risk assessment, monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. Specifically, a growing catalogue of somatic mutations associated with germline RUNX1 malignancy offers the opportunity for informed monitoring of asymptomatic RUNX1 carriers for additional high-risk somatic mutations, in turn providing the possibility for early therapeutic intervention to arrest the leukemic process. The challenge in advancing these goals for FPD-MM is the relative rarity of the disorder in individual populations. Global data sharing in a highly interactive FPD-MM research community offers a solution to this problem that benefits all patients world-wide. Aims: To create a global RUNX1 network through identifying and contacting researchers and clinicians with known and novel germline RUNX1 families, seeking their collaboration to share genomics data. To create a RUNX1.db portal to collectively house and analyse genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers, with associated phenotype and clinical information, such that researchers have an ongoing means by which to combine their data with those generated by other groups around the world. Methods: RUNX1 network : Through existing collaborative networks, a systematic review of the literature, and referrals from initial contacts, we have identified a global network of researchers managing FPD-MM cases and families. RUNX1.db: We have adapted a custom-built variant analysis platform, VariantGrid, that is a visual web application and database designed to help scientists manage and analyse DNA variants that can be used to aggregate and analyse multiple datasets. Results: Preliminary analysis of aggregated data from the literature suggests there are features of germline RUNX1 syndrome that can be ascertained. These include frequent somatic mutation of RUNX1 in malignancy development, as well as mutations in genes associated with clonal hematopoiesis that may precede development of overt leukemia. This analysis also suggests that different types of germline RUNX1 mutations may be associated with different combinations of somatic mutations in the tumour. To further this analysis, we have identified over 70 groups internationally that either manage RUNX1 families or have identified potential germline carriers through genomics initiatives. This represents a large and growing resource for both scientific studies and clinical programs to benefit individuals with FPD-MM. Many of these groups have generated NGS data sets from patient samples which will be available for analysis through this portal. Further details and activities of the network, and results from the genomics aggregation database will be presented. Conclusion: We have created a global RUNX1 network, aggregated their data, and generated a RUNX1.db genomics portal for the continuous curation of genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers. A preliminary analysis has already identified specific features of germline RUNX1 mutated malignancies that have clinical importance. Ongoing scientific and clinical studies through the RUNX1 network will enhance the power of aggregated data analysis, with RUNX1.db providing a central link, driving new insights that benefit patients. Disclosures Natsoulis: Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Guzman:Cellectis: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Medimmune: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Wei:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dokal:MRC, Bloodwise, Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; The Gary Woodward Dyskeratosis Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Action Medical Research, European School of Haematology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London,: Employment, Research Funding; Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London: Employment; Gary Woodward Dyskeratois Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hiwase:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Branford:Cepheid: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Qiagen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Owen:Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Rienhoff:Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kurokawa:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma: Research Funding; Nippon Sinyaku: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eizai: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Chugai Pharmaceutical: Research Funding.