Mullighan, Charles G.

While the cure rate of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) now exceeds ~90% with contemporary combination chemotherapy, the prognosis for adults with ALL remains significantly inferior with long-term overall survival ranging from 50% to 70%. Recent studies have uncovered marked differences in ALL genomics between children and adults, with some high-risk subtypes becoming more prevalent with age. However, the underlying biology of age-related disparities in ALL is not fully understood, especially with regard to differences in leukemia sensitivity to chemotherapy. To address this knowledge gap, we performed ex vivo drug sensitivity profiling (i.e., pharmacotyping) of 21 anti-leukemia agents on primary B-ALL diagnostic samples from 767 pediatric (age, 0-18 years) and 309 adult (19-84 years) patients. Drug sensitivity was measured as LC 50: the concentration of drug required to kill 50% of the leukemia cells (PMID: 36604538). A total of 7,975 unique LC 50 values were experimentally determined. RNA-seq was used for subtype classification and gene expression analysis. Among 21 drugs, seven showed significant differences in overall LC 50 between children and adults ( P<0.05 after Bonferroni correction): children displayed higher sensitivity to asparaginase, prednisolone, mercaptopurine, daunorubicin, and inotuzumab, while adults showed higher sensitivity to dasatinib and nelarabine. In multivariate models adjusting for 23 ALL molecular subtypes, only mercaptopurine remained significantly associated with age ( P=1.5×10 -5), suggesting that age-related differences in drug sensitivity can be primarily attributed to the variation in ALL subtypes between children and adults. For mercaptopurine, within KMT2A, CRLF2, and DUX4 subtypes, pediatric samples consistently showed a lower LC 50 than adults carrying the same genomic abnormality ( P=0.032, 0.0045, and 0.02, respectively). To explore intra-subtype heterogeneity, we performed unsupervised clustering using gene expression data for each of these three subtypes. Remarkably, within each of these subtypes, we identified two clusters with distinct transcriptomic profiles that were also largely segregated by age group, i.e., an adult-dominated cluster (C-a) and a pediatric-dominated cluster (C-p). In the KMT2A subtype, cases in C-a exhibited an over-representation of the KMT2A:: AFF1 fusion, and resistance to mercaptopurine ( P=0.029), prednisolone ( P=0.0039), vincristine ( P=0.046) and cytarabine ( P=0.0037). Within CRLF2 ALL, cases in C-a were associated with the presence of BCR:: ABL1-like signature and IGH:: CRLF2 rearrangements, and were more resistant to mercaptopurine ( P=0.0073) and prednisolone ( P=0.00036) compared to those in C-p. For DUX4 ALL, C-a was characterized by an under-representation of ERG deletions and resistance to mercaptopurine ( P=0.0056) and prednisolone ( P=0.0031), compared to C-p within DUX4. To explore the clinical relevance of this heterogeneity, we analyzed the in vivo treatment response of KMT2A (N=35), CRLF2 (N=59) and DUX4 (N=118) B-ALL enrolled in six frontline ALL trials. Compared to cases in C-p (usually drug-sensitive), those in C-a (usually drug-resistant) consistently had significantly poorer initial treatment responses as measured by persistent end-of-induction minimal residual disease (≥0.01%) in KMT2A (58% vs 9%; P=0.0063), CRLF2 (74% vs 41%; P=0.030), and DUX4 (66% vs 40%; P=0.0058) ALL. In conclusion, these studies have revealed important new insights into the pharmacogenomic basis of age-related differences in B-ALL treatment response. These results indicate that both inter- and intra-subtype heterogeneity contribute to inferior prognosis in adults with ALL, but also point to therapeutic opportunities to improve their outcomes.

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Background: Approximately 2-3% of B-ALL patients have Philadelphia chromosome like (Ph-like) B-ALL with an ABL-class fusion ( ABL1, ABL2, PDGFRB, or CSF1R fusions), but lacking BCR::ABL1. These patients are predicted to be sensitive to ABL-class tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as imatinib or dasatinib. Ph-like B-ALL is associated with male sex, older age, higher initial white blood cell (WBC) count, elevated end of induction (EOI) minimal residual disease (MRD), and poor outcome. The AALL1131 Dasatinib arm was designed to evaluate response to therapy following induction of patients with ABL-class fusion B-ALL, when given dasatinib continuously on a modified Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (MBFM) backbone. Methods: Between February 2012 and March 2019, AALL1131 enrolled patients 1-30 years with newly diagnosed high risk (HR) B-ALL. AALL1131 was amended in August 2016, to include the Dasatinib arm for patients with ABL-class fusions involving ABL1, ABL2, PDGFRB, and CSF1R. Patients with Down Syndrome were not eligible for the Dasatinib arm. ABL-class fusion B-ALL patients with a predicted TKI-sensitive mutation were screened by low density array (LDA) PCR and confirmed by additional molecular testing. Following 4-drug induction, patients with HR B-ALL and ABL-class fusions received MBFM with dasatinib (60 mg/m 2, maximum 140 mg) daily from start of consolidation through end of maintenance. Dasatinib was held only for toxicity. Results: Twenty-two evaluable patients with HR B-ALL were non-randomly assigned to the Dasatinib arm. ABL-class 3' partners included ABL1 (n=4), ABL2 (n=4), PDGFRB (n=12), and CSF1R (n=2). Compared to all patients on AALL1131, patients treated on the Dasatinib arm were older (median age at diagnosis 14 versus 10 years, p=0.008), more often male (77% versus 56%, p=0.046), and had a trend towards an increased initial WBC (median WBC at diagnosis 44,000/µL versus 19,000/µL, p=0.086). Patients with ABL-class fusions had EOI MRD > 0.01% in 20 of 22 patients and available end of consolidation MRD >0.01% in 6 of 10 patients. Only 5 of 22 (22.7%) patients completed prescribed protocol therapy. Reasons for therapy discontinuation included induction failure (n=2), relapse (n=1), alternate therapy (n=1), determined to be in the patient's best interest (n=10), death (n=1), unknown (n=2). Compared to all patients on AALL1131, four-year disease-free survival was 52.5+18.1% versus 86.8+0.7% (p<0.0001) and overall survival 79.4+13.6% versus 89.2+0.4% (p<0.0001). Dasatinib was well tolerated with no unexpected treatment related toxicities. Conclusion: Patients with ABL-class fusions were more likely male, EOI MRD+, and had poorer outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of patients enrolled on the Dasatinib arm did not complete prescribed therapy. While dasatinib was well tolerated, treatment failures occurred early, indicating alternate strategies are needed.

PURPOSE Patients with Down syndrome (DS) and B-ALL experience increased rates of relapse, toxicity, and death. We report results for patients with DS B-ALL enrolled on Children's Oncology Group trials between 2003 and 2019. METHODS We analyzed data for DS (n = 743) and non-DS (n = 20,067) patients age 1-30 years on four B-ALL standard-risk (SR) and high-risk trials. RESULTS Patients with DS exhibited more frequent minimal residual disease (MRD) ≥0.01% at end induction (30.8% v 21.5%; P < .001). This difference persisted at end consolidation only in National Cancer Institute (NCI) high-risk patients (34.0% v 11.7%; P < .0001). Five-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly poorer for DS versus non-DS patients overall (EFS, 79.2% ± 1.6% v 87.5% ± 0.3%; P < .0001; OS, 86.8% ± 1.4% v 93.6% ± 0.2%; P < .0001), and within NCI SR and high-risk subgroups. Multivariable Cox regression analysis of the DS cohort for risk factors associated with inferior EFS identified age >10 years, white blood count >50 × 103/μL, and end-induction MRD ≥0.01%, but not cytogenetics or CRLF2 overexpression. Patients with DS demonstrated higher 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (11.5% ± 1.2% v 9.1% ± 0.2%; P = .0008), death in remission (4.9% ± 0.8% v 1.7% ± 0.1%; P < .0001), and induction death (3.4% v 0.8%; P < .0001). Mucositis, infections, and hyperglycemia were significantly more frequent in all patients with DS, while seizures were more frequent in patients with DS on high-risk trials (4.1% v 1.8%; P = .005). CONCLUSION Patients with DS-ALL exhibit an increased rate of relapse and particularly of treatment-related mortality. Novel, less-toxic therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes.

Abstract The comprehensive evaluation of somatic variants in cancer requires consensus interpretation of their potential clinical significance (diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response) and oncogenicity. To aid precision medicine through public interpretations, a multifaceted collaborative effort is required to bring together a community, structured guidance, and a public platform. The over 200 multi-disciplinary experts in the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) provide a community that develops data curation guidelines and standards and curates evidence to determine the clinical significance and oncogenicity of somatic alterations in cancer. The Somatic CDWG established the Pediatric Cancer, Hematological Cancer, and Solid Tumor Taskforces to facilitate membership growth and targeted curation projects. Within these Taskforces, Somatic Cancer Variant Curation Expert Panels (SC-VCEPs) are developed through a 4-step approval process adapted from ClinGen germline VCEP procedures. Five SC-VCEPs (NTRK-fusions, FGFR variants, FLT3 variants, Histone H3 variants, and BCR::ABL1-like B-ALL alterations) are working through the approval process and one (Established Significance) is in the planning stage. SC-VCEPs tailor AMP/ASCO/CAP [PMID:27993330] and ClinGen/CGC/VICC Oncogenicity [PMID:35101336] guidelines, or create new classification guidance to aid granular assessment of their genomic alterations of interest. The Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) knowledgebase provides the public platform for the Taskforces and SC-VCEPs to display their high-quality somatic cancer variant interpretations. These groups curate evidence from published literature and create Assertions summarizing evidence collected. These Assertions are further disseminated through other resources like ClinVar and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) MetaKB. CIViC supports the application of AMP/ASCO/CAP tiering and levels for clinical significance Assertions. CIViC recently created Oncogenic Assertions, which supports the application of ClinGen/CGC/VICC codes. Three SC-VCEPs (FGFR, FLT3, and Histone H3) are tailoring the ClinGen/CGC/VICC Oncogenicity guidelines to their specific genes and CIViC will enable their ClinGen-approved, modified codes to be applied directly to their Oncogenic Assertions. Also, two SC-VCEPs (NTRK and BCR::ABL1-like) are developing fusion specific oncogenicity classification guidelines, which will be applied to their fusion specific CIViC Oncogenic Assertions. ClinGen Somatic groups have generated 695 CIViC Evidence Items and 33 Assertions from over 400 published papers. These numbers will continue to grow along with the development of more SC-VCEPs. ClinGen Somatic and CIViC foster collaboration, innovation, and most importantly the advancement of precision medicine. Citation Format: Jason Saliba, Arpad Danos, Kilannin Krysiak, Adam Coffman, Susanna Kiwala, Joshua McMichael, Cameron J. Grisdale, Ian King, Shamini Selvarajah, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, David Meredith, Mark Evans, Charles G. Mullighan, Yassmine Akkari, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Alex H. Wagner, Ramaswamy Govindan, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, on behalf of the ClinGen Somatic Clinical Domain Working Group. ClinGen Somatic and CIViC collaborate to comprehensively evaluate somatic variants in cancer [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 6569.

Abstract Myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias derive from the clonal expansion of hematopoietic cells driven by somatic gene mutations. Although assessment of morphology plays a crucial role in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with these malignancies, genomic characterization has become increasingly important for accurate diagnosis, risk assessment, and therapeutic decision making. Conventional cytogenetics, a comprehensive and unbiased method for assessing chromosomal abnormalities, has been the mainstay of genomic testing over the past several decades and remains relevant today. However, more recent advances in sequencing technology have increased our ability to detect somatic mutations through the use of targeted gene panels, whole-exome sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, and whole-transcriptome sequencing or RNA sequencing. In patients with myeloid neoplasms, whole-genome sequencing represents a potential replacement for both conventional cytogenetic and sequencing approaches, providing rapid and accurate comprehensive genomic profiling. DNA sequencing methods are used not only for detecting somatically acquired gene mutations but also for identifying germline gene mutations associated with inherited predisposition to hematologic neoplasms. The 2022 International Consensus Classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias makes extensive use of genomic data. The aim of this report is to help physicians and laboratorians implement genomic testing for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical decision making and illustrates the potential of genomic profiling for enabling personalized medicine in patients with hematologic neoplasms.

Abstract The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.