Inghirami, Giorgio

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a heterogeneous group of T-cell lymphomas that currently are classified by the presence or absence of ALK tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes (ALK+ or ALK−) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous, or breast implant-associated). Two overarching molecular types of ALCL recently were discovered, defined by the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of a gene expression signature highly enriched for JAK-STAT3 activation. Fusions involving non-ALK TK genes occur in some ALK− cases, but the fusion landscape of ALCL remains incompletely characterized. Methods: Expert consensus pathology review was conducted in the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). RNAseq was performed and fusions were identified using FusionCatcher. Here, we focused on recurrent in-frame coding fusions. Previously unreported fusions were validated by RT-PCR. Type I/II was assigned using a previously validated gene expression-based model. Genes with adjusted (adj) P<0.05 were considered differentially expressed. Overall survival (OS) was assessed for systemic ALCL, when available. Results: We evaluated 379 ALCLs (229M/150F; mean age, 56 y). Of 199 candidate fusions (excluding reciprocal events), 28 were recurrent and passed quality metrics. At least 1 of these 28 fusions was present in 150 cases (40%). ALK fusions were present in 106 ALK+ ALCLs (all Type I; P<0.0001). Of these, NPM1::ALK was seen in 68/106 (64%). Alternate partners (X::ALK) included ATIC (N=24) and CTLC, COL1A2, MSN, MYH9, RNF213, SATB1, TFH, TPM3, and TRAF1 (1-3 cases each). X::ALK was associated with older age (mean, 52 y) than NPM1::ALK (32 y; P<0.0001) and showed relative overexpression of 49 genes, including multiple activators of small GTPases such as CGNL1 (FC, 5.6; Padj=2.4×10-6), SRGAP1, ALS2, DOCK1, and NCKAP1. ALK expression was similar in cases with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK and there was no significant difference in OS. Non-ALK TK fusions were seen in 17/273 ALK− cases (6%), including TYK2 (N=9); JAK2 (N=6); and ROS1 (N=2). All were Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001). ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions overexpressed 38 genes compared to ALK− cases without TK fusions, including cytokines involved in the IL17 signaling pathway such as CXCL6 (FC, 12.5; Padj=4.2×10-3), CXCL1, and CSF3. We then assessed the relationship between ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions and ALK+ cases by separately comparing each subset to ALK− cases without TK fusions. FC values for ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were significantly correlated with FC values for ALK+ ALCLs over the set of expressed genes (R=0.54; P<0.0001). At a median follow-up of 32 months, 0/4 systemic ALCL patients with non-ALK TK fusions had died, while 30% of those with ALK− ALCL without TK fusions had died, but this was not statistically significant (P=0.26). The other 13 ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were either localized ALCLs or did not have outcome data available. Of 20 TP63 fusions, 17 (85%) were TBL1XR1::TP63 and 3 were X::TP63. As previously reported, TP63 fusions were associated with poor OS (median OS, 10 months; not reached for other ALK− ALCLs; P=0.007). Four ALCLs had a novel NCL::UBTF fusion involving genes encoding the nucleolar proteins nucleolin and nucleolar (upstream binding) transcription factor-1. Four cases each had PARG::BMS1 and TNK1::GPS2 (the latter seen only in Type I ALCLs). Conclusions: This large consortium-based analysis of coding fusions further elucidates the molecular distinction between Type I and Type II ALCLs. Both ALK and non-ALK TK fusions were seen exclusively in Type I ALCLs, which we have shown previously are enriched for JAK-STAT3 pathway genes and correlate strongly with pSTAT3Y705 positivity by immunohistochemistry. These fusions were not identified in Type II ALCLs, which previous data suggest are associated with epigenetic alterations. ALK+ ALCLs with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK showed differences in gene expression, suggesting biological differences. Furthermore, ALCLs with non-ALK TK fusions shared gene expression features with ALK+ ALCL. Clinical fusion detection could enhance molecular classification of Type I and Type II ALCLs and may guide precision therapy.

Introduction Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare aggressive subtype of lymphoma. It is more common in HIV positive patients, and is often associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and MYC rearrangements. PBL is characterized by markers of plasmacytic differentiation including CD138 and MUM1/IRF4, and loss of B-cell markers such as CD20, which suggests a cell of origin similar to that of multiple myeloma (MM) or activated B-cell-like (ABC) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The standard of care for PBL is CHOP-based chemotherapy but this is frequently not curative. Other than EBV-negative status, which defines a high-risk group, no other biological features have been discovered that are associated with outcomes. Methods Here, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic landscape of PBL using a collection of 176 exomes and genomes (n=55 new, contributed by Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project [LLMPP] sites and centrally reviewed by the LLMPP pathology panel [WHO 2016]; n=121 previously published [PMID: 33225311, 33951889, 34465776, 34714908]), 65 transcriptomes (n=44 new; n=21 published) and 37 in situ single cell transcriptomic profiles (CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager) from archival diagnostic tissue biopsies. Somatic mutations (SNVs/Indels) were identified using an ensemble of four variant callers (Strelka2, Lofreq, Mutect2, SAGE). Salmon and DESeq2 were used to identify differentially expressed genes. This multi-omics dataset was compared to other known B-cell malignancies including 92 MM, 238 Burkitt lymphomas (BL), and 208 DLBCLs. Cell segmentation of the CosMx data was performed using Baysor and downstream analyses were conducted using the Seurat workflow. For functional validation, cell viability assays (CellTiter-Glo Luminescent Assay) were conducted in the PBL cell line, PBL-1, and 4 control DLBCL cell lines. Results Within the cohort, 63% (106/169) of primary PBL cases were EBV-positive (EBV+) and 57% (82/144) harbored MYC rearrangements (MYC+). When stratifying patients by EBV and MYC rearrangement status, mutations in different genes were enriched in each group: STAT3 occurred in 55% (29/53) of EBV+/MYC+ PBLs; NOTCH1 in 19% (7/36) of EBV+/MYC-; MYC in 24% (6/25) and TP53 in 40% (10/25) of EBV-/MYC+ tumors; TET2 was mutated in 38% (9/24) and KRAS in 25% (6/24) of EBV-/MYC- PBLs. EBV-/MYC+ tumors represented a subgroup of patients with dismal outcomes. The 2-year overall survival (OS) of these patients was 22% compared to 61%, 78%, and 54% of EBV+/MYC+, EBV+/MYC-, and EBV-/MYC- PBL patients, respectively (log-rank test p-adj. < 0.05). Consistent with previous studies, we observed recurrent mutations affecting JAK-STAT (STAT3, SOCS1, SOCS3, DUSP2) in 41% of cases and RAS-RAF (NRAS, KRAS, BRAF) signaling in 38% of all PBLs. In contrast to ABC-DLBCL, very few mutations occurred in the NF-κB signalling pathway. Accordingly, PBL showed marked downregulation of genes involved in B-cell receptor and NF-κB signaling. Consistent with the lack of reliance on these pathways, functional analyses in PBL-1 showed resistance to treatment to ibrutinib as well as PI3K- and MALT1-inhibitors. Moreover, constitutive expression of the IκBα super-repressor did not affect viability of PBL-1 cells. In situ single cell transcriptomic data analyses showed a sparse tumor microenvironment (TME) in PBL, with the primary non-malignant cell types being, on average, 10% macrophages, 7% NK/T cells, and 4% stromal cells of all represented cell types. EBV+/MYC+ tumors displayed a more abundant immune cell population with higher levels of macrophages (median 12%) and NK/T cells (median 9%), whereas EBV-/MYC- tumors were composed of the lowest levels of immune cells (median 4% macrophages and 1% NK/T cells). With respect to malignant cell phenotypes, we noted a novel population of SPP1-expressing cells that were enriched in EBV+/MYC+ tumors and a population of CD44-expressing cells that were enriched in EBV+/MYC- tumors. Conclusion Here we present novel subgroups of PBL with unique biology and clinical outcomes. We show that PBL does not rely on B-cell receptor signaling, instead relying on potentially targetable vulnerabilities in JAK-STAT, NOTCH, and RAS-RAF signaling according to EBV positivity and MYC rearrangement status. Lastly, we provide insight into the TME of PBL and demonstrate a novel population of SPP1 and CD44 expressing malignant cells in EBV+ tumors.