Jevremović, Dragan

8034 Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma (MM) has improved our ability to assess disease activity, resulting in more advanced prognostication. While MRD assessment remains confined to the bone marrow (BM) plasma cell population, serum studies including immunofixation (IFE) are required to complete response evaluation. The significance of those who are MRDneg yet have detectable monoclonal protein through IFE remains unclear. Methods: We retrospectively studied 256 MM patients who had MRD assessment via the Euroflow multiparametric flow cytometry on the BM with concomitant serum IFE testing. Patients who were MRDneg were included in the study. Outcomes included probability of disease progression (PD) at 1 year. The Cox-proportional hazards model was used to compare probability of PD among different groups. Time to progression (TTP) was calculated as the difference from date of MFC analysis to PD in months. Results: Among the entire cohort, 178 (70%) patients were MRDneg and median follow-up from MRD assessment was 6.3 months. Among these patients, 74 (42%) had a positive IFE at the time of MRD analysis. Within the MRDneg/IFEpos group, 31 (42%) patients remained IFEpos after a median follow up of 5.5 mo from initial MRD/IFE testing while 34 patients eventually became IFEneg after a median of 2.8 mo with no subsequent IFE available in 9 patients. The 1 year probability of PD in the MRDneg/IFEneg group was 20% compared to 41% in the MRDneg/IFEpos group (P < 0.01, Wilcoxon test). When comparing subsequent IFE status in those who were MRDneg/IFEpos, those who remained IFEpos had a trend towards shorter TTP compared to patients who later became IFEneg. Conclusions: Persistent monoclonal protein in the face of MRD negativity predicts for a shorter TTP. This likely reflects persistent disease that was not sampled on the BM aspirate in many of these patients compared to those who eventually become IFEneg with a trend towards longer TTP owing to the prolonged half-life and therefore clearance of M protein. This supports the current strategy of assessing for MRD at the time of suspected complete response to reduce the chance of positive MRD tests and thus avoidance of multiple BM exams.

8031 Background: Our prior studies identified the prognostic significance of ≥400 cPCs/150,000 analyzed events quantified by MFC in NDMM. We evaluated if a similar quantification of cPCs using MFC can add prognostic value to the current R-ISS classification of NDMM pts. Methods: We evaluated all NDMM pts seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 2009-2017 who had their peripheral blood samples evaluated by 6-color MFC prior to therapy. The cPCs detected were reported as the number of clonal events/150,000 collected total events. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences assessed using the log rank test. Results: This cohort consisted of 566 consecutive pts with NDMM with a median age of 66 years (27-95). The distribution of the R-ISS classification of this cohort is as follows: Stage 1- 128 (23%) pts, Stage 2- 369 (65%) pts and Stage 3- 69 (12%) pts. The median number of cPCs was 59 (0-46,412) / 150,000 events. The median time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) for pts with ≥400 cPCs (n = 140, 25%) was 19 months and 46 months compared with 34 months and 77 months for those with < 400 cPCs respectively (n = 426, 75%) (p < 0.001 for both). The median TTNT and OS for pts based on their R-ISS classification as well as with and without the presence of ≥400 cPCs by MFC was as follows in the following Table. Conclusions: Quantifying ≥400 cPCs/150,000 analyzed events by MFC can potentially upstage the R-ISS classification of a subset of NDMM pts with stage I and II disease and identify those pts with a worse than expected survival outcome.[Table: see text]

AbstractThe diagnosis of primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) has been made by quantifying circulating plasma cells (cPCs) morphologically on a peripheral blood (PB) smear. However, this technique is not sufficiently sensitive. Multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) provides a readily available and highly sensitive method to identify and quantify cPCs that could complement PB smear assessment. However, an optimal quantitative cutoff for cPCs by MFC to identify pPCL has not been established. Thus, a total of 591 patients newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who had their PB samples evaluated morphologically by PB smear, and immunophenotypically by MFC prior to beginning therapy were evaluated. The presence of ≥200 cPCs/μL by MFC (N = 25 or 5% of the total population) was chosen to identify patients with ≥5% cPCs by PB smear with a specificity of 99% and a sensitivity of 77%. For patients with ≥200 cPCs/μL by MFC compared to the remainder of the cohort, the median Time to next therapy (TTNT) was 18 vs 30 months and the median OS was 38 vs 70 months respectively. Thus, MFC assessment of PB can be utilized in conjunction with the morphological assessment of a PB smear to aid in improving the identification of pPCL among NDMM patients.

SummaryWe sought to dissect the tumour microenvironment in a small cohort (N = 10) of patients with POEMS at diagnosis and after therapy using mass cytometry. We included 10 MGUS patients as controls. We identified 29 immune cell subsets in the CD45+ and CD3+ compartments. Double positive T cells and PD‐1 positive CD4 T cells were expanded and naïve CD4 T cells were decreased in the bone marrow of patients with newly diagnosed/progressing POEMS. These findings provide evidence for possible antigenic‐driven selection as a driver of disease pathogenesis in POEMS.

AbstractWe evaluated bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in 44 patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis using next generation flow cytometry (sensitivity ≥1 × 10−5; median events analyzed: 8.7 million, range: 4.8 to 9.7 million). All patients underwent MRD testing in 2 years from start of therapy (median: 7 months). The overall MRD negative rate was 64% (n = 28). The MRD‐negative rate after one‐line of therapy was 71% (20/28). And, MRD negative rates were higher with stem‐cell transplant as first‐line therapy (86%, 18/21) vs chemotherapy alone as first‐line treatment (29%, 2/7), P = .005. The MRD negative rate amongst patients in complete response was 75% (15/20), and in very good partial response, 50% (11/22). There were two patients in partial response/rising light chains (with renal dysfunction) who were MRD negative. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of MRD negative vs MRD positive patients, except younger age amongst MRD‐negative patients. Patients with MRD negativity were more likely to have achieved cardiac response at the time of MRD assessment, 67% (8/12) vs 22% (2/7), P = .04. Renal response rates were similar in both groups. Progression free survival was assessed in the 42 patients achieving CR or VGPR. After median follow‐up of 14 months, the estimated 1‐year progression free survival in MRD negative vs MRD positive patients was 100% (26 patients, 0 events) vs 64% (16 patients, five events), P = .006, respectively. MRD assessment should be explored as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and MRD risk‐adapted trials may help optimize treatment in AL amyloidosis.

AbstractOur prior studies identified the prognostic significance of quantifying cPCs by multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. We evaluated if a similar quantification of cPCs could add prognostic value to the current R‐ISS classification of 556 consecutive NDMM patients seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 2009 to 2017. Those patients that had ≥5 cPCs/μL and either R‐ISS stage I or stage II disease were re‐classified as R‐ISS IIB stage for the purposes of this study. The median time to next therapy (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with ≥5 cPCs/μL at diagnosis was as follows: R‐ISS I (N = 110) ‐ 40 months and not reached; R‐ISS II (N = 69) ‐ 30 and 72 months; R‐ISS IIB (N = 96) ‐ 21 and 45 months and R‐ISS III (N = 281) ‐ 20 and 47 months respectively. Finally, ≥ 5 cPCs/μL retained its adverse prognostic significance in a multivariable model for TTNT and OS. Hence, quantifying cPCs by MFC can potentially enhance the R‐ISS classification of a subset of NDMM patients with stage I and II disease by identifying those patients with a worse than expected survival outcome.

BACKGROUND: pPCL is a rare and aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM) with poor survival outcomes compared to that experienced by MM patients. It has been traditionally defined by the presence of an absolute plasma cell count of > 2000/microL or >20% circulating plasma cells (cPCs) in the peripheral blood. However, several recent studies have validated the optimal cutoff for defining pPCL to be >5% cPCs on a peripheral blood smear due to equally poor outcomes in this less restrictive cohort. Hence, given the rarity of this disease entity, we evaluated the clinical outcomes and cytogenetic features of patients diagnosed with pPCL at our institution with the new proposed definition of pPCL by >5% cPCs on peripheral blood smear that were treated with novel agent induction therapies. METHODS: We evaluated all patients with pPCL diagnosed between 2000 - 2018 evaluated at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Data regarding these patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and from the review of the electronic medical records. Patients were categorized as having high risk cytogenetics if any of the following abnormalities were present: del 17p, t(4;14), t(14;16) or t(14;20). Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare differences between the sub-groups of interest. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences assessed using the log rank test. RESULTS: This cohort consisted of 71 patients with pPCL with a median age of 62 years (range: 34-91) of which 33 (46%) were male. The median follow up was 46 months (95% CI: 41 - 90). The median bone marrow plasma cell content was 84% (Range: 10 - 100) and the median plasma cell percentage on the peripheral smear was 23% (range: 5 - 93). There were 48 (68%) patients with >20% cPCs in their peripheral blood smear. Only 23 (32%) patients had concurrent information on the number of cPCs by multiparametric flow cytometry at diagnosis and the median number of cPCs detected was 32,807 per 150,000 events analyzed (Range: 354 - 132,256). There were 15/54 (28%) patients who presented with a creatinine of 2 mg/dL or greater and 17/55 (31%) pts who presented with hypercalcemia (11 mg/dL or greater). Data for ISS classification was available in 45 patients and is as follows: Stage 1- 3 (7%) patients, Stage 2- 10 (22%) patients and Stage 3- 32 (71%) patients. Data on the presence of primary cytogenetic abnormalities were available in 60 (85%) patients of which 29 (49%) had high risk cytogenetics. The distribution of primary cytogenetic abnormalities among this cohort was as follows: t(11;14) - 27 (45%), t(4;14) - 5 (8%), t(14;16) - 8 (13%), t(14;20)- 3(5%) and del 17p- 15(25%). All patients received novel agent induction therapy with 40 (57%) of them having received at least one autologous stem cell transplant and 1 patient undergoing an allogeneic stem cell transplant. The median overall survival (OS) for all pPCL patients in this cohort was 23 months (95% CI: 19 - 38). The OS was similar in patient with 5-19% cPCs vs. >20% cPCs (24 vs. 23 months, P = 0.999). However, when the entire cohort was stratified by cytogenetic risk, the median OS was 51 months for standard risk vs. 19 months for high risk (P = 0.005) (FIGURE). There were only 17 (30%) patients in this cohort who were alive for 48 months or longer since diagnosis (i.e. twice the median OS of this cohort) and they were more likely to not have high risk cytogenetics at diagnosis (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this analysis of one of the largest contemporary cohorts of pPCL patients, the outcomes of patients diagnosed with pPCL remain poor despite the use of novel agent induction therapy. However, some patients appear to do better than expected and this phenomenon may be influenced by the absence of high risk cytogenetics. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz:Celgene: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau.

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.