Heuck, Christoph

Abstract Introduction: Patients (pts) with soft tissue plasmacytomas noncontiguous with bone (true extramedullary disease [EMD]) have poor outcomes with standard therapies shown by low overall response rates (ORRs), which are not durable. Talquetamab (Tal; anti-GPRC5D×CD3) and teclistamab (Tec; anti-BCMA×CD3) are first-in-class bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved as monotherapies for triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Primary analysis from the RedirecTT-1 (NCT04586426) dedicated phase 2 EMD cohort (March 2025 data cut; median follow-up [mFU] 12.6 mo) showed Tal + Tec elicited an ORR of 78.9% (assessed by independent review committee) and a 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) of 61.0%. Here, we report updated efficacy, using investigator assessment, and safety results from the phase 2 RedirecTT-1 EMD cohort with Tal + Tec. Importantly, we report EMD location and a novel analysis of tumor burden as a prognostic indicator of ORR. Methods: Pts had TCE RRMM and true EMD defined as ≥1 nonradiated soft tissue plasmacytoma noncontiguous with bone ≥2 cm in 1 dimension (with or without paramedullary plasmacytomas). Nonsecretory/oligosecretory disease was permitted. Prior CAR-T and non-BCMA/-GPRC5D BsAb therapies were permitted. Pts received Tal 0.8 mg/kg + Tec 3.0 mg/kg Q2W, preceded by step-up doses, with a permitted switch to monthly dosing at investigator's discretion after cycle 6 or after cycle 4 with confirmed ≥VGPR. Response was assessed per IMWG; EMD response was assessed by PET-CT or MRI whole-body scans. Tumor burden was assessed by total EMD tumor volume. Results: As of July 2025, 90 pts received Tal + Tec, with a median follow-up of 16.3 mo (range 0.5–23.7). Baseline characteristics were as previously reported; 39% had nonsecretory/oligosecretory disease, 20% had prior anti-BCMA CAR-T therapy, and 9% had prior BsAb therapy (all anti-FcRH5). The median number of plasmacytomas was 2 (range 1–7); 17 (18.9%), 29 (32.2%), and 74 (82.2%) pts, respectively, had ≥1 nodal, organ, or soft tissue EMD, while 11 (12.2%) also had ≥1 additional paramedullary plasmacytoma. Of 268 EMDs across all pts, 95 (35.4%) were nodal EMD, 77 (28.7%) were organ EMD (most commonly liver), and 64 (23.9%) were soft tissue EMD; 32 (11.9%) were paramedullary. Baseline EMD tumor volume was <25 cm2in 43 (47.8%) pts, 25–50 cm2 in 21 (23.3%) pts, and >50 cm2 in 26 (28.9%) pts. Per investigator assessment, ORR (95% CI) was 77.8% (67.8–85.9); 50.0% had a ≥CR. Median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable (NE; 12-mo DOR rate, 60.1%), 12-mo PFS was 55.6%, and median overall survival (OS) was NE (12-mo OS rate 73.8%). ORR was 90.7% (77.9–97.4; ≥CR 60.5%) in pts with EMD tumor volume <25 cm2, 66.7% (43.0–85.4; ≥CR 52.4%) for 25–50 cm2, and 65.4% (44.3–82.8; ≥CR 30.8%) for >50 cm2. Common adverse events (AEs) included CRS (77.8%; no grade [gr] 3/4) and neutropenia (72.2%; gr 3/4 62.2%). Taste changes (78.9%), non-rash skin AEs (68.9%), and nail AEs (55.6%) were all gr 1/2, and rash AEs (30.0%) were mostly gr 1/2. ICANS occurred in 11 (12.2%) pts (gr 3, 1.1%; gr 4, 1.1%). Infections occurred in 72 (80.0%) pts (gr 3/4 40.0%), most commonly upper respiratory tract infection (26.7%; gr 3/4 5.6%); IVIG was highly recommended to prevent and manage hypogammaglobulinemia and infection. Ten (11.1%) pts discontinued Tal + Tec due to treatment-emergent AEs (4 pts due to infections and 6 due to gr 5 AEs). Two pts discontinued Tal only due to AEs. In total, 11 (12.2%) pts had gr 5 AEs (6 due to infections), 6 of which were deemed to be drug related by investigators. Data will be updated with an additional 4 mo of follow-up for the presentation. Conclusions: With longer follow-up in pts with TCE RRMM with true EMD regardless of baseline tumor characteristics, Tal + Tec efficacy exceeded all approved therapies, including T-cell redirecting and cellular therapies, noting limitations of cross-study comparisons. Lower total EMD tumor volume was associated with a higher ORR but low pt numbers in each group and lack of statistical testing limits robust interpretation. The safety profile of Tal + Tec was generally consistent with each monotherapy; AEs were not exacerbated with the combination. These data continue to highlight the clinical benefit of the novel combination of Tal + Tec in pts with true EMD, a population with high disease burden and significant unmet need.

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) often receive immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; eg, lenalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (eg, bortezomib), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as part of their initial treatment. However, most pts relapse following initial treatment, with increasing attrition rates observed at each subsequent line of therapy (LOT), creating an unmet need for treatment options for pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who have prior exposure to these agents. Current regimens for pts who have prior exposure to lenalidomide and anti-CD38 mAbs include elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EPd; approved in Europe and the US) and pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd; approved in Europe and Australia), but disease control, as well as depth and durability of response, could be improved. Talquetamab (tal) and teclistamab (tec), targeting CD3 and either G protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D (GPRC5D, tal) or B-cell maturation antigen (tec), are the first T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved as monotherapies in Europe and the US for the treatment of pts with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM. Use of these novel immunotherapies in earlier LOTs, either with a dual-antigen targeting approach or by enhancing the activity of the BsAb with an IMiD (pomalidomide), may provide deeper, more durable responses and improve pt quality of life. Preliminary data using these combination treatments have shown promising results: in the phase 1b MonumenTAL-2 study (NCT05050097), tal+pomalidomide (tal-P) demonstrated overall response rates (ORRs) of >84% in pts with RRMM with ≥2 prior LOTs and in the phase 1b/2 RedirecTT-1 study (NCT04586426), tal+tec (tal-tec) showed ORRs of >77% in pts with TCE RRMM. MonumenTAL-6 (NCT06208150) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy of tal-P vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd and tal-tec vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd in pts with RRMM with 1-4 prior LOTs, including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb. Study Design and Methods: Eligibility includes pts aged ≥18 years with documented MM per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria, with measurable disease at screening, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who have received 1-4 prior LOTs (including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb in any prior LOT), and have progressive disease on or after their last therapy. Pts with prior exposure to pomalidomide, tec, or GPRC5D-directed therapies are excluded. Approximately 795 pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive tal-P, tal-tec, or investigator's choice of EPd or PVd. Tal is administered subcutaneously at 0.8 mg/kg every other week (Q2W), and tec is administered subcutaneously at 3.0 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) following step-up doses of each. Pts are permitted to switch from Q2W to Q4W tal dosing following a confirmed very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) at cycle 5. Pomalidomide, EPd, and PVd are administered per approved dosing schedules. Randomization is stratified by number of prior LOTs (1 vs ≥2), International Staging System stage at screening (I vs II/III), and investigator's choice of treatment (EPd vs PVd). Pts receive study treatment until disease progression, start of subsequent anti-MM treatment, death, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or end of study, whichever occurs first. A finite dosing approach is employed for tal and tec. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include ORR assessed per IMWG 2016 criteria, ≥VGPR rate, complete response (CR) or better rate, rate of minimal residual disease-negative CR, overall survival, PFS on next LOT, time-to-next treatment, and pt-reported outcomes. This study is actively recruiting, with more than 160 locations in 26 countries. Results will provide insights into the efficacy of the combination of BsAbs in therapeutic strategies that exploit their different mechanisms of action to overcome treatment resistance and improve outcomes of pts with TCE RRMM in earlier LOTs.

Abstract We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10−5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172.

Abstract In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10−5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action, and has been approved across lines of therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care (SoC) regimens, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP), in the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE clinical studies reduced the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44%, nearly doubled the rate of complete response (CR) or better, and induced a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold) vs SoC alone in pts with TIE NDMM. In both MAIA and ALCYONE, MRD negativity was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), irrespective of trial treatments. MRD negativity provides an index of deep clinical response and may be a more robust evaluation of disease control if sustained over time. Here, we evaluate MRD negativity, including sustained MRD negativity, in pts with TIE NDMM from MAIA and ALCYONE and its association with PFS with longer follow-up. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation due to age (≥65 years) or unacceptable coexisting conditions in MAIA and ALCYONE were randomized (1:1) to SoC ± DARA. Pts in MAIA received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter). ALCYONE pts received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (V: 1.3 mg/m2 SC twice weekly during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycle 1 and QW during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycles 2-9; M: 9 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9; and P: 60 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycle 1, Q3W for Cycles 2-9, and Q4W for Cycles 10+). Study treatments continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. MRD was assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE in all pts who achieved a CR or stringent CR. For ≥CR pts, additional MRD assessments occurred at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after the first dose in ALCYONE and at 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 months in MAIA. MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing using the clonoSEQ® assay (v.2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold. Sustained MRD negativity was defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity confirmed ≥6 or ≥12 months apart with no MRD positive test in between and was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: A total of 737 (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) pts in MAIA and 706 (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) pts in ALCYONE were randomized; median duration of follow-up was 36.4 months in MAIA and 40.1 months in ALCYONE. In both studies, DARA-based therapy improved MRD negativity vs SoC in the ITT population (D-Rd, 28.8% vs Rd, 9.2%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 28.3% vs VMP, 7.0%, P<0.0001). MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs MRD-positive pts in the ITT population, regardless of treatment arm. In a pooled analysis of pts from DARA (D-Rd/D-VMP) and SoC (Rd/VMP) treatment groups, MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs pts who were MRD positive, irrespective of treatment arm. In general, baseline characteristics were comparable among pts in DARA and control treatment groups with sustained MRD negativity. A higher proportion of pts in the ITT populations of MAIA (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) achieved sustained MRD negativity with DARA-based therapy vs SoC for ≥6-months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%, P<0.0001) and ≥12-months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; P<0.0001; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%, P<0.0001). PFS was prolonged in pts with sustained MRD negativity for ≥6-months and ≥12-months vs pts without sustained MRD negativity in the pooled ITT populations, regardless of treatment arm (Figure). Conclusions: DARA-based combination regimens induce higher rates of MRD-negativity and sustained MRD negativity in pts with TIE NDMM, which are associated with deep responses and improved PFS. Disclosures San-Miguel: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen;: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mateos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDOMundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Touzeau:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sanofi: Honoraria. Cavo:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Ukropec:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramaswami:Janssen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pei:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Janssen: Current Employment. Krevvata:Janssen: Current Employment. DeAngelis:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Heuck:Christoph Heuck: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Current Employment. Kudva:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: non-paid consultancy. Kobos:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qi:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson and Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bahlis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 627 Myeloproliferative diseases (MPD) are clonal hematologic disorders that present with increased numbers of functional, mature, terminally differentiated myeloid elements. Even though genetic, biochemical and functional studies have provided important insights into the pathogenesis of MPDs, the role of epigenetic changes in disease pathobiology is not well elucidated. We performed the HELP assay to study genome-wide methylation patterns in cases of Polycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocytosis (ET) and Idiopathic Myelofibrosis (IMF) and compared it with normal matched controls. The HELP assay uses differential methylation specific digestion by HpaII and MspI followed by amplification, two color labeling and hybridization to quantitatively determine individual promoter CpG methylation of 25636 loci. Analysis of 26 MPD neutrophil samples comprising 9 cases of ET, 6 cases of PV and 11 Cases of IMF was performed and compared to normal healthy controls. Unsupervised clustering based on global methylation profiles showed that IMF cases formed a distinct epigenetic cluster, while PV and ET cases were more similar to the normal controls. Further analysis of epigenetic differences between these groups showed that PV and ET samples were characterized by aberrant hypermethylation when compared to controls and had 143 genes that were uniformly hypermethylated. These genes are involved in pathways regulated by the NF-Kb and HNF-4alpha transcription factors. IMF on the other hand was characterized by both aberrantly hyper (n=162) and hypomethylated (n=95) loci when compared to controls. The pathways affected by hypomethylated genes were involved in cytokine cell signaling and MAP kinases. We subsequently validated these observations in an independent set of 8 IMF cases compared to 8 age matched controls. Methylation profiles obtained from whole blood by the HELP assay were able to clearly separate IMF cases from controls demonstrating the validity of our observations. These changes were quantified on a whole genome level by the Luminometric methylation assay (LUMA) that also revealed significantly more hypomethylation in IMF when compared to PV and ET cases (49% hypomethylation in IMF vs. 38% in PV/ET, p<0.05). Selected changes were validated by Mass Array sequencing. We next wanted to determine the epigenomic effects of Jak2V617F mutation and compared methylation profiles of MPD cases with and without the mutation. We observed that cases with Jak2 mutation had a higher number of differentially hypomethylated loci. This striking difference was seen by the LUMA assay also with 67% hypomethylation seen in mutant cases when compared to 48% in those without the mutation (p=0.02). This observation was validated in vitro in a cell line (FDCP) that expressed wither WT or mutant Jak2 kinase. We observed that expression of the mutant kinase led to global hypomethylation. This observation builds on recent data demonstrating nuclear binding of the mutant Jak2 kinase and its effects on the histone epigenetic machinery. In conclusion, we report that MPDs are characterized by various novel epigenetic alterations that affect important functional pathways and IMF is grossly epigenetically distinct from ET and PV. The Jak2 mutation also affects the methylome and leads to global hypomethylation that potentially contributes to the genomic instability and disease pathobiology. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Over the last 15 years gene expression profiling (GEP) has been used to define myeloma molecular subgroups and to determine clinical prognosis. Two major molecular subgroup classifications have been used: the UAMS which determines 7 subgroups and the TC classification based on the presence of IgH translocations and expression of D group cyclins. For prognosis, although a number of different GEP signatures have been defined, the widely used GEP70 identifies 15% of patients with high risk (HR) disease who have a median PFS and OS of 1.75 and 2.83 years. An ideal classification system would identify clinically relevant subgroups with distinct etiology and biology using standardized techniques. We have examined a large group of patients characterized at multiple genetic levels to optimize the diagnostic approach of newly diagnosed patients going forward. Materials and methods Study subjects included 1349 cases enrolled in Total Therapy trials (median follow up 7.5 years). Gene expression profiling was used to determine GEP70 risk status, molecular subgroup by UAMS and TC classifications, and to devise a new and extended TC classification (TC10). Interphase FISH associated with IgH translocations and 1q+ and 17p- were used to build GEP proxies. Data from mutational analysis generated by the FoundationOne targeted sequence panel was also incorporated. Results were validated on the UK MRC MyelomaIX and Hovon65/GMMG-4 studies. Results An initial agnostic analysis of GEP data using sparse k-means clustering verified the existence of TC based groups. Six groups were identified that corresponded overwhelmingly with known TC subgroups; CCND1-t(11;14), D1-HRD, D2-HRD, MMSET, MAF/CCND2, and CCND3. Further comparisons between the molecular subgroup and TC classifier revealed that the UAMS 7 subgroups clustered strongly within one predominant TC group: CD-1 and CD-2 to t(11;14), HY to D1, LB and PR to D2, MF to t(14;16) or t(14;20), and MS to t(4;14). As the UAMS molecular subgroups are largely contained within the TC framework, we aimed to extend the TC by developing the TC10. To extend the known TC subgroups, unsupervised clustering was applied to the 3 largest subgroups [t(11;14), D1, and D2] to determine the strongest single divisor within each respective subgroup. The dominant feature within the t(11;14) cases was CD20 expression, while the D1 and D2 subgroups both split according to RRAS2. CD20 is associated with PAX5 and VPREB3 expression, and RRAS2 is associated with decreased PTP4A3 and increased TNFAIP3 and BIRC3 expression. RRAS2 activation within D1 subgroup and CD20 activation within t(11;14) cases corresponds to an increased time to response to induction therapy suggesting they constitute important biological subgroups. The TC10 combines the known etiologic subgroups of the TC with functionally relevant subdivisions to create 10 novel subgroups: t(11;14) CD20+/-, D1: RRAS2+/-, D2: RRAS2+/-, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and t(6;14). Analysis of mutational data revealed that RRAS2 and CD20 activation within the D1, D2, and t(11;14) subgroups reduced the number of mutations in the MAPK pathway. Further mutational analysis revealed that median mutational load was highest in t(14;16) and lowest in D2: RRAS2+ subgroups. The GEP70 score identifies 15% of patients with HR disease and is specific for this purpose. In an analysis of risk assessment methods, we compared GEP detected adverse lesions [t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 17p- and 1q+] with the GEP70 and revealed that GEP70 HR identified samples have lower OS rates than cases with more than one adverse lesion (validated in external sets). GEP70 HR segregates non-uniformly across molecular subgroups as over 40% of all HR cases are found in the TC10 t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) subgroups. GEP70 HR cases also have a higher mutational load than low risk cases. Furthermore, GEP70 HR is uniquely associated with 1q+ and 17p- as cases with at least one of these adverse lesions are 4.9 times as likely to be GEP70 HR as cases with neither. Conclusion GEP profiling has a central role in simplifying and standardizing the molecular subgroup designation and risk stratifying of MM patients. The GEP70 risk score reliably identifies HR cases and outperforms FISH in risk assessment, even in validation data sets. The TC10 provides a classification system that improves upon previous methods by defining both etiological and functionally meaningful subgroups. Disclosures Stein: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Heuck:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Millenium: Other: Advisory Board; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria. Weinhold:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Janssen Cilag: Other: Advisory Board. Chavan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Thanendrarajan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Yaccoby:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Zangari:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. van Rhee:University of Arkansa for Medical Sciences: Employment. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Barlogie:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Morgan:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weismann Institute: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.