Peterson, Jess F.

Abstract The diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) relies on the identification of PML::RARA fusion. While the majority of APL cases harbor a typical t(15;17)(q24;q21), atypical genetic mechanisms leading to the oncogenic PML::RARA fusion have been reported yet their frequency and scope remain poorly characterized. We assessed the genetic findings of 831 cases with APL investigated with concurrent chromosome banding analysis and dual‐color dual‐fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (D‐FISH) analysis at our institution over an 18.5‐year timeframe. Seven hundred twenty‐three (87%) cases had a typical balanced t(15;17) with both testing modalities. Atypical karyotypic results including complex translocations, unbalanced rearrangements and insertional events occurred in 50 (6%) cases, while 6 (0.7%) cases were cryptic by conventional chromosome studies despite PML::RARA fusion by D‐FISH evaluation. Atypical FISH patterns were observed in 48 (6%) cases despite apparently balanced t(15;17) on chromosome banding analysis. Two hundred fifty (30%) cases displayed additional chromosome abnormalities of which trisomy/tetrasomy 8 (37%), del(7q)/add(7q) (12%), and del(9q) (7%) were most frequent. Complex and very complex karyotypes were observed in 81 (10%) and 34 (4%) cases, respectively. In addition, 4 (0.5%) cases presented as an apparently doubled, near‐tetraploid stemline clone. This report provides the largest appraisal of cytogenetic findings in APL with conventional chromosome and PML::RARA D‐FISH analysis. By characterizing the frequency and breadth of typical and atypical results through the lens of these cytogenetic testing modalities, this study serves as a pragmatic source of information for those involved in the investigation of APL in both the clinical and research laboratory settings.

Abstract The World Health Organization category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA rearrangements is composed of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that can present as a myeloproliferative neoplasm, acute myeloid leukemia, myeloid sarcoma, or lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. The overall outcome of these neoplasms is favorable with imatinib therapy. Herein, we describe an adult female patient with a myeloid neoplasm accompanied by eosinophilia and a novel USP25::PDGFRA gene fusion.

Abstract Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy characterized by a collection of cytogenetic abnormalities that drive clinical presentation, response to treatment, and prognosis. The most common immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) translocation found in MM, t(11;14), results in CCND1 overexpression. Although t(11;14) is considered a standard risk cytogenetic abnormality, heterogeneity in patient outcomes and response to therapy within the t(11;14) group has been reported. In contrast to t(11;14) mantle cell lymphoma, where most cases (73%) have a typical, balanced t(11;14) rearrangement, only 47% of t(11;14) MM have a typical, balanced t(11;14) FISH pattern; the remaining 53% of MM are characterized by an atypical t(11;14) FISH result (Dalland, Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 2021). Here, we compared the genetic characteristics of typical vs. atypical t(11;14) MM and the association with other genomic abnormalities, CCND1 expression, IGH breakpoint location and patient outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of newly diagnosed t(11;14) MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic (N=411) or enrolled in the MMRF CoMMpass trial (N=167). The t(11;14) FISH results of the Mayo Clinic samples were segmented into two groups: typical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=179, 3 red, 3 green, 2 fusion signals) and atypical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=232, any FISH pattern deviating from typical). The CoMMpass cases had both RNAseq and long-insert WGS data and were analyzed to detect gene expression, structural and copy number variants and IGH breakpoint locations. These data were used to classify the t(11;14) as typical (n=63) or atypical (n=104) and whether there was a single t(11;14) fusion (n=107) or a gain of the t(11;14) fusion (n=60), and whether these cases were associated with changes in gene expression or breakpoint location. Differences between the groups were measured using χ2 and Wilcoxon tests. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan Meier and compared using the Log-Rank test. Statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. Results: Of the Mayo t(11;14) cohort, 232/411 (56%) had an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern and 179/411 (44%) had a typical t(11;14) FISH pattern. Although an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern was not significantly associated with monosomy 17/17p deletion, MYC rearrangements, 1q gain or ISS stage III, it was significantly associated with the presence of any trisomy in comparison to typical t(11;14) cases (40/222=18% vs.12/166=7%, p=0.002). Atypical t(11;14) cases had an increase in CCND1 gene expression compared to typical t(11;14) cases (median 375.0 RPKM vs. 266.4 RPKM, p<0.0001) and cases with a gain of the t(11;14) fusion were associated with even greater CCND1 expression compared to cases with a single t(11;14) fusion (median 459.4 RPKM vs. 263.2 RPKM, p<0.0001). We next evaluated whether the t(11:14) FISH pattern was associated with differences in IGH breakpoint locations. Nearly 80.0% of atypical t(11;14) cases had a breakpoint within the constant region of the IGH locus commonly reported for MM, while only 61.0% of the typical cases had constant region breakpoints (p=0.035); the remaining cases had breakpoints involving the VDJ region. We next evaluated the impact of atypical t(11;14) FISH on OS. In Mayo cases, OS was significantly shorter in patients with atypical FISH patterns compared to typical t(11;14) FISH patterns (6.9 years [95% CI: 5.1-7.8] vs. 9.0 years [95% CI: 7.0-11.6], p=0.019). Although atypical t(11;14) was associated with increased risk of death (RR 1.45, p=0.021), this finding was not retained in a multivariate model including high risk abnormalities such as age, ISS stage, 17p deletion and 1q gain demonstrating atypical t(11;14) is not an independent predictor of poor outcome when treated with standard therapies. Conclusions: Atypical t(11;14) FISH in MM is found in approximately half of t(11;14) cases, is associated with trisomies, higher CCND1 expression and is more likely to have a breakpoint involving the constant region of the IGH locus. The enrichment of VDJ breakpoints within typical t(11;14) MM is consistent with enrichment of VDJ IGH breakpoints in MCL, which are mostly characterized by typical t(11;14) FISH patterns. While not an independent predictor of outcome with standard therapies, it remains to be evaluated whether patients with typical or atypical t(11;14) have a differential response to novel agents, such as venetoclax. Disclosures Fonseca: Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell (PC) malignancy with an increasing incidence in the United States. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is currently the gold-standard diagnostic assay to detect recurrent genomic abnormalities of prognostic and therapeutic significance in MM. Hyperdiploid MM, a standard risk abnormality, is characterized by gains of odd-numbered chromosomes including chromosome 15. While gains of chromosome 15 have been reported in approximately 53% of standard risk MM patients (Chretien, Blood, 2015), losses of chromosome 15 are rarely reported. Enumeration of chromosome 15 centromere is detected using the alpha satellite FISH probe. We previously discovered ~9% of cases had false-negative chromosome 15 FISH results when compared to Mate Pair Sequencing (MPseq) (Smadbeck, BCJ, 2019). To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported a reduced performance of the alpha satellite D15Z4 FISH probe in PC FISH studies. A false-negative result for D15Z4 could result in an underreporting of trisomy 15 and overreporting of monosomy 15. Here, we investigated the incidence of false-negative D15Z4 FISH results by examining the presence of monosomy 15 from patients with a monoclonal gammopathy. Methods: We identified 1231 samples from patients with a monoclonal gammopathy who had undergone uniform testing to identify MM-specific cytogenetic abnormalities. DNA from bone marrow samples was genotyped on the Precision Medicine Research Array and biogeographical ancestry was assessed using the Geographic Population Structure Origins tool (Elhaik, Nat Commun, 2014; Home DNA 2016). FISH of immunoglobulin (cIg)-stained PCs was performed as described (Baughn, BCJ, 2018). Chromosome 15 centromere probe (Vysis CEP 15 D15Z4, Abbott Molecular, Abbott Park, IL) was used for chromosome 15 enumeration. Samples were divided into two groups: Cases with or without evidence of monosomy 15 by FISH. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare difference between groups for data deviating from normal distribution. A Chi-squared test evaluating the differences across these two groups was used. Results: We identified monosomy 15 in 31 cases (2.5% of cohort). Monosomy 15 was observed in nearly 100% of both the PC (cIg+) and non-PC (cIg-) populations, by contrast to the other recurrent PC-specific genomic abnormalities which were restricted to only the PC population. All samples with a banded analysis revealed most metaphases had two normal chromosome 15s demonstrating that the D15Z4 FISH probe failed to correctly enumerate the number of chromosome 15 centromere signals. Of the samples with a monosomy 15 result, the median African ancestry was 76.2% (95% percentiles: 77.5%-89.0%), while the median African ancestry of the non-monosomy 15 cohort was 2.3% (95% percentiles: 0%-87.7%) (). Although not all patients with >50% African ancestry had evidence of monosomy 15, 26/31 (83.9%) of patients with monosomy 15 had >50% African ancestry. Accordingly, patients with African ancestry (similarity ≥ 0.70) had 8.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 3.73-17.25, P = 9.92 X10 -8) increased possibility to have monosomy 15. Of cases with monosomy 15, 22 (71.0%) had an IGH rearrangement with the most prevalent IGH partner being CCND1. The incidence of t(11;14) was greater in the monosomy 15 group (13/31:41.9%), in contrast to the non-monosomy 15 group (330/1200=27.5%) (P = 0.12). Conclusions: We report a polymorphic variant of the chromosome 15 centromere resulting in a false-negative FISH result using the D15Z4 FISH probe. Surprisingly, the false-negative FISH result was not uniformly distributed among patients and was highly enriched in individuals of African ancestry. This may be due to a variation of the chromosome 15 alpha satellite in some individuals that prevents the D15Z4 FISH probe from sufficiently binding (O'Keefe, Genome Research, 2000). Although this study focused on identification of monosomy 15, the incidence of a false-negative result is likely greater than we have reported in this study since we did not evaluate cases that had a true trisomy 15 that was reported as normal chromosome 15 enumeration by FISH. This study highlights a critical need to ensure diagnostic reagents have equal performance for all patients independent of their ancestry. Evaluation of genomic events using unbiased approaches such as whole genome sequencing may circumvent some of these limitations. Disclosures Elhaik: DDC: Consultancy. Baird: DDC: Current Employment. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract KMT2A gene rearrangements are a major oncogenic driver in multiple hematologic neoplasms. Apart from t(9;11)(p21;q23) (KMT2A/MLLT3) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), KMT2A gene rearrangements are considered to convey high risk and poor overall survival. Herein, we report a case of a 7 year old boy with newly diagnosed AML and a cryptic KMT2A/AFDN gene fusion resulting from a 5′KMT2A insertional event. The results of conventional chromosome studies revealed trisomy 8 in all 20 metaphases, with normal-appearing chromosomes 6 and 11. A KMT2A break-apart FISH probe identified 2 intact copies of the KMT2A gene region and an extra 5′KMT2A signal in 85% of interphase nuclei. Subsequent FISH studies using a KMT2A/AFDN dual-color dual-fusion FISH probe revealed positive results for a single fusion in 82% of interphase nuclei, indicating a KMT2A/AFDN gene fusion. Subsequently, metaphase FISH confirmed the location of the KMT2A/AFDN fusion at 6q27. To our knowledge, this represents only the second time in the literature that a cryptic KMT2A/AFDN gene fusion resulting from a 5′KMT2A insertional event was reported.

SummaryWe report a comparative analysis of patients with therapy‐related acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (tr‐ALL) vs de novo ALL. We identified 331 patients with B‐ALL; 69 (21%) were classified as tr‐ALL. The most common prior malignancies were breast (23·2%) and plasma cell disorders (20·3%). Patients with tr‐ALL were older (median 63·2 vs. 46·2 years, P < 0.001), more often female (66·7% vs. 43·5%, P < 0·001), and more likely to have hypodiploid cytogenetics (18·8% vs. 5·0%, P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, patients with tr‐ALL were less likely to achieve complete remission [odds ratio (OR) = 0·16, P < 0·001] and more likely to be minimal residual disease‐positive (OR = 4·86, P = 0·01) but had similar OS after diagnosis and allo‐haematopoietic cell transplantation.

Abstract The detection of recurrent genetic abnormalities in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion, is critical for optimal medical management. Herein, we report a 45 year old woman with newly diagnosed AML and conventional chromosome studies that revealed an apparently balanced t(8;20)(q22;p13) in all 20 metaphases analyzed. A RUNX1T1/RUNX1 dual-color dual-fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probe set was subsequently performed and revealed a RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion. Metaphase FISH studies performed on abnormal metaphases revealed a cryptic, complex translocation resulting in RUNX1T1/RUNX1 fusion, t(8;20;21)(q22;p13;q22). This case study shows the importance of performing FISH studies or other high-resolution genetic testing concurrently with conventional chromosome studies for the detection of cryptic recurrent gene fusions in AML, particularly a focused genetic evaluation such as RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion, when specific abnormalities involving 8q22 are identified.

Abstract Purpose: Structural variants (SV) of the MYC gene region are common in multiple myeloma and influence disease progression. However, the prognostic significance of different MYC SVs in multiple myeloma has not been clearly established. Experimental Design: We conducted a retrospective study of multiple myeloma comparing MYC SV subtypes identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and FISH to MYC expression and disease survival using 140 cases from Mayo Clinic and 658 cases from the MMRF CoMMpass study. Results: MYC SVs were found in 41% of cases and were classified into nine subtypes. A correlation between the presence of a MYC SV and increased MYC expression was identified. Among the nine MYC subtypes, the non-immunoglobulin (non-Ig) insertion subtype was independently associated with improved outcomes, while the Ig insertion subtype, specifically involving the IgL gene partner, was independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with other MYC SV subtypes. Although the FISH methodology failed to detect approximately 70% of all MYC SVs, those detected by FISH were associated with elevated MYC gene expression and poor outcomes suggesting a different pathogenic role for FISH-detected MYC subtypes compared with other MYC subtypes. Conclusions: Understanding the impact of different MYC SVs on disease outcome is necessary for the reliable interpretation of MYC SVs in multiple myeloma. NGS approaches should be considered as a replacement technique for a more comprehensive evaluation of the multiple myeloma clone.