Citations

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 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.

Abstract IgM MGUS and Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) represent a disease spectrum with highly dissimilar 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. To shed light on the biology that may account for the clinical differences, we used bone marrow (BM) CD19+/CD138+ sorted cells and matched BM plasma from 32 patients (pts) (7 IgM MGUS, 25 WM) and 5 healthy controls to perform the first comprehensive multiomics approach including whole exome sequencing, RNA seq, proteomics and metabolomics. Applying principal component analysis to gene expression profiling, most of WM pts clustered together, while a small subset of them grouped separately with MGUS pts, suggesting a biologic dichotomy within WM. The healthy controls formed a distinct group from most WM and MGUS. We then applied a non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering to the gene expression data and identified three robust clusters. Cluster 1 (C1) included only WM pts, cluster 2 (C2) included both WM and MGUS pts, and cluster 3 (C3) included all controls as well as a small number of WM and MGUS pts. When mutations commonly identified in WM were analyzed, there was no difference among the three groups (excluding controls) in mutation burden of MYD88 L265P and CXCR4. Interestingly, aberrant expression of TNFAIP3 seemed a distinct feature of C1 as deletion of 6q (which encodes for TNFAIP3) and TNFAIP3 mutations were each significantly enriched in C1 (47%) compared to C2 (0%) and C3 (20%; p=0.04). Individual clusters associated with specific transcriptional signature and clinical features. While C1 displayed enrichment of cell growth, downregulation of inflammatory pathways (eg IL6 and IL8 signaling) and aggressive behavior, C2 showed increased inflammatory signaling and cell survival with indolent behavior. C3 had an intermediate feature with combined proliferative and inflammatory signatures. In accordance with the transcriptomic data, the hallmark of C1 was upregulation of proliferation-associated proteins (eg AKT, MAPK) and downregulation of inflammatory proteins (eg IL4, IL10) while the opposite was observed in C2. Once more, C3 confirmed intermediate features with combined upregulation of proliferation and inflammatory proteins. The metabolism was rewired towards fatty acid catabolism in C1, glycolysis in C2 and anabolism in C3. Accordingly, C1 showed undetectable concentration of 3-hydroxybutyric acid as opposed to C2 which had increased levels of malic and lactic acids, as end products of fatty acid oxidation and glycolysis respectively. Those metabolites had intermediate levels in C3. In conclusion, we identified three molecular clusters with distinct clinical, proteomic and metabolomic features, suggesting a potential biologic classification that may have therapeutic implications. Citation Format: Patrizia Mondello, Jonas Paludo, Joseph Novak, Kerstin Wenzl, Shahrzad Jalali, Jordan Krull, Esteban Braggio, Surendra Dasari, Michelle Manske, Jithma Abeykoon, Asher Chanan-Khan, Robert Kyle, Morie Gertz, Zhi Zhang Yang, Anne Novak, Stephen Ansell. Molecular clusters and functional drivers of IgM monoclonal gammopathies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3487.

Abstract Introduction: Low-grade B-cell lymphomas (LGBCL), aside from follicular lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, account for approximately 10% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and consist of several subtypes. While a majority of LGBCL cases have an overall favorable prognosis, we have previously shown that cases who have an event (relapse or progression, transformation, or re-treatment) within 24 months of diagnosis (EFS24) have an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to those achieving EFS24 (Tracy et al., AJH 2019;94:658-66). However, the underlying biological characteristics associated with early failure and aggressive disease across LGBCL subtypes are unknown. In this study, we used matched transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiling data from LGBCL cases, the largest cohort to date, and asked whether there were unique biological phenotypes across different LGBCL subtypes and whether we could identify signatures associated with aggressive LGBCL. Validation of the prognostic utility of this signature was performed on a previously published, independent cohort of 63 pre-treatment LGBCL cases. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly diagnosed LGBCL patients from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence were included in this study (SMZL (n = 48), NMZL (n = 6), LPL (n = 5), B-NOS (n = 3), EMZL (n = 2)). RNA sequencing (RNAseq) data from 61 LGBCL tumors and 5 benign CD19+CD27+ memory B samples was subjected to NMF clustering to define groups. Differential expression and pathway analysis were used to identify biological characteristics of each cluster. CIBERSORT was used to identify immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 61 tumor-normal pairs. Singscore was used to assign a single score per patient representing gene expression of the survival-associated transcriptomic signature identified in this study. Results: NMF analysis of RNAseq data identified 5 clusters of patients, denoted LGBCL1-5 (Fig 1A). Patients from the same diagnostic subtype did not exclusively cluster together, with all LGBCL clusters comprised of patients from multiple subtypes (Fig 1B). Exploring the association between patient cluster and outcome, we observed significantly inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.01-4.98) and overall survival (OS) (HR 5.59; 95% CI 2.00-15.63) in LGBCL5 patients compared to LGBCL1-4 (Fig 1C). In addition, 80% of the transformation cases in our cohort were classified as LGBCL5 (Fig 1D). Differential expression and pathway analysis showed distinct processes significantly upregulated in each cluster (FDR < 0.05), with LGBCL5 demonstrating enrichment of cell cycle and mitosis pathways. CIBERSORT identified increased immune cell content in LGBCL3 and LGBCL5 compared to other clusters, with high frequencies of mast cells in both (p = 0.0002), increased CD8 T cells in LGBCL3 (p < 0.0001), and increased T follicular helper cells in LGBCL5 (p = 0.004). WES identified previously reported alterations in NOTCH, NFkB, and chromatin remodeling pathways and novel variants in LGBCL, including mutations in HNRNPK, CLTC, HLA-A, HLA-B and HLA-C. Assessment of alterations by cluster showed significant enrichment of TNFAIP3 (OR 5.54; 95% CI 1.20-28.14) and BCL2 alterations (OR 5.49; 95% CI 1.07-32.02) in LGBCL5 cluster. Finally, we identified a cell cycle-related transcriptomic signature of 108 genes upregulated in LGBCL5 and EFS24 failure cases. Cases with high expression of this signature showed significantly inferior EFS (HR 14.25; 95% CI 4.90-41.38) and OS (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.40-25.44) compared to cases with low expression in our discovery cohort. This observation was reproduced in an independent validation cohort, where patients with high expression of this signature demonstrated significantly inferior EFS (HR 5.70; 95% CI 1.49-21.79) and OS (HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61). Conclusions: In this study, we are the first to define mechanisms of pathogenesis in LGBCL with shared transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiles present across LGBCL subtypes. We then further defined a gene expression signature associated with inferior patient outcome, with application of this signature to an independent validation cohort demonstrating proof of concept and utility of this signature as a prognostic marker in LGBCL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.