Citations

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with TP53 alteration (TP53alt), including deletion (TP53del) detected by cytogenetics (CG) (karyotype, FISH, or genomic microarray) and/or TP53 mutation (TP53mut) identified by next-generation sequencing, is associated with poor prognosis. However, a subset of patients may achieve long-term survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Patient-, disease-, and transplant-related variables may inform risk stratification and improve treatment decision-making in this high-risk population. We used the CIBMTR registry to investigate outcomes of patients with TP53alt AML undergoing allo-HCT. Methods: We included adult patients with 2017 ELN adverse-risk AML who underwent first allo-HCT between 2013–2019 and had available CG and molecular data. TP53del was centrally reviewed by expert cytogeneticist. Patients were stratified into three TP53alt groups: Group 1 (TP53mut+/ TP53del+), Group 2 (TP53mut −/ TP53del+), and Group 3 (TP53mut+/ TP53del −). The control group comprised patients with 2017 ELN adverse-risk AML negative for both TP53mut and TP53del. Patients from embargoed centers, lacking consent or comprehensive research data, or missing CG and molecular information were excluded. Results: Of 6,474 patients with adverse-risk AML, 703 patients with TP53alt met inclusion criteria: Group 1 (n=203), Group 2 (n=271), Group 3 (n=229). The control group included 2,763 patients. Median age was 58 years (44% ≥60); 44% were female; 16% had Karnofsky score <90, and 52% had HCT-CI ≥3. Secondary AML was more frequent in TP53alt groups (32%, 27%, 27%) versus control (21%) (p<.01). Complex and monosomal karyotypes were most common in Group 1 (61%), followed by Group 2 (54%), Group 3 (31%), and control (6%), p<.01. More patients in Groups 1 and 2 (28% each) underwent HCT in primary induction failure/relapse (PIF/Rel) versus Group 3 (19%) and control (19%), p<.01. Median time from diagnosis to transplant was 5 months (1-331). Donor type was matched related in 23%, matched or mismatched unrelated in 50%, haploidentical in 18%, and umbilical cord blood in 7%. Conditioning intensity was myeloablative (MA) in 51%; reduced-intensity (RIC) in 36% , and 13% non-MA (NMA). Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in 27%; and in vivo T-cell depletion (ATG or alemtuzumab) in 26%. After median follow-up of 66 months (3-130), 5-yr OS was 18% (Group 1), 18% (Group 2), 35% (Group 3) vs 46% in controls (p<0.001). 5-yr LFS was 14%, 15%, and 28%, respectively, vs 38% (p<0.001). 5-yr CIR was 69%, 66%, and 52% vs 43% (p<0.001). Transplant-related mortality (TRM) was similar across groups (1-year: 12–16%). On multivariate analysis, compared with controls, TP53del (with or without TP53mut) was independently associated with higher relapse risk: Group 1 HR 1.97, Group 2 HR 1.91, Group 3 HR 1.45 (all p<0.001). These findings translated into inferior OS (HR 1.94, 1.87, and 1.45, respectively, p<0.001). PIF/Rel and CR2+ were also associated with worse survival (HR 2.58 (p<0.001) and 1.18 (p<0.001, respectively). No significant difference was observed between MA and RIC for relapse, while non-myeloablative regimens (HR 1.65; p<0.001) were associated with higher CIR. In vivo T-cell depletion increased relapse risk (HR 1.22; p=0.004). TRM was not influenced by TP53alt status; it was impacted by age, KPS, time from diagnosis to HCT, and GVHD prophylaxis regiment (non-PTCy). Conclusions: This large, registry-based study with long term median follow-up showed that among patients with adverse-risk AML, TP53alt is a strong independent predictor of poor post-HCT outcomes in AML, particularly when TP53del is present. Patients with TP53del , with or without concurrent TP53mut, experienced the worst outcomes, followed by those with isolated TP53mut. Despite the limitations of registry data including lack of information on timing of TP53mut, variant allele frequency (VAF), number of mutations, or accurate information on measurable residual disease (MRD), these findings reinforce the adverse prognostic impact of TP53alt and support its inclusion in risk stratification frameworks. While some patients with TP53alt —particularly those with isolated mutations—may benefit from allo-HCT, relapse remains the dominant cause of failure. Future studies incorporating TP53 functional status, VAF, clonal architecture, specific CG, MRD, and novel transplant approaches are warranted.

Abstract Objectives Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

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 CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer; civicdb.org) is a crowd-sourced, public domain knowledgebase composed of literature-derived evidence characterizing the clinical utility of cancer variants. As clinical sequencing becomes more prevalent in cancer management, the need for cancer variant interpretation has grown beyond the capability of any single institution. CIViC contains peer-reviewed, published literature curated and expertly-moderated into structured data units (Evidence Items) that can be accessed globally and in real time, reducing barriers to clinical variant knowledge sharing. We have extended CIViC’s functionality to support emergent variant interpretation guidelines, increase interoperability with other variant resources, and promote widespread dissemination of structured curated data. To support the full breadth of variant interpretation from basic to translational, including integration of somatic and germline variant knowledge and inference of drug response, we have enabled curation of three new Evidence Types (Predisposing, Oncogenic and Functional). The growing CIViC knowledgebase has over 300 contributors and distributes clinically-relevant cancer variant data currently representing >3200 variants in >470 genes from >3100 publications.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.

Abstract Interpretation of the clinical significance of somatic gene variants in cancer remains a major challenge in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response prediction. We will report on progress and plans of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG). The CDWG membership consists of over 150 multi-disciplinary experts in cancer biology, oncology, pathology, genetics, genomics and informatics. The mission of the ClinGen Somatic Cancer CDWG is to facilitate the development of data curation guidelines and standards to determine the clinical significance of somatic alterations in cancer, thereby enhancing the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other knowledgebases including CIViC, ClinVar, and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) MetaKB. Our goal is to create high-quality assertions of the clinical significance of specific somatic variants in cancer by leveraging the CIViC curation interface, adapting the germline procedures of ClinGen to somatic variant interpretation, and implementing the interoperability standards of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH). The ClinGen Somatic effort is overseen by the Somatic CDWG and reports progress to the overall ClinGen consortium. There are Somatic Cancer subdomains focused on particular clinically important domains of cancer variant interpretation including three Task Forces (covering Pediatric Cancer, Hematologic Cancer, and Solid Tumors) and a growing number of Somatic Cancer Variant Curation Expert Panels (SC-VCEPs). To improve quality and consistency of clinical interpretations, each candidate somatic cancer VCEP must complete a four step approval process adapted from ClinGen’s work in Germline disease domains. The Somatic CDWG works to ensure that each group is aware of available training materials and detailed standard operating procedures. Each SC-VCEP also coordinates with the ClinGen Cancer Variant Interpretation Committee (CVI) whose goal is to support development of granular specifications for the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines for somatic variant interpretation. New SC-VCEPs are anticipated to focus on specific clinically relevant genes, pathways, disease entities, variant classes or treatment modalities. Currently, three SC-VCEPs have begun to work through the four step process (focused on FGFR mutations, NTRK fusions, and FLT3 mutations respectively), and two more SC-VCEPs are in the planning stage (Histone H3 and Ph-like ALL). To date, ClinGen Somatic groups have contributed 619 evidence lines into CIViC from 353 published papers and 21 assertions of clinical significance. Input from the AACR community is critical for the establishment of new SC-VCEPs that address areas of variant interpretation with the greatest need. Citation Format: Jason Saliba, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Ian King, Shamini Selvarajah, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, David Meredith, Mark Evans, Alanna Church, Panieh Terraf, Yassmine Akkari, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Chimene Kesserwan, Deborah I. Ritter, Kilannin Krysiak, Arpad Danos, Alex Wagner, Marilyn M. Li, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jonathan S. Berg, Sharon E. Plon, Heidi L. Rehm, Shashikant Kulkarni, Ramaswamy Govindan, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, on behalf of the ClinGen Somatic CDWG. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) somatic cancer clinical domain working group [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 1192.

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.