Shi, Min

Abstract Objectives Flow cytometric detection of T-cell clonality is challenging, particularly in differential diagnosis of immature T-cell proliferations. Studies have shown utility of TRBC1, in conjunction with other T-cell markers, as reliable means to identify T-cell clonality by flow cytometry. One limitation of surface TRBC1 (sTRBC1) evaluation is it cannot be detected in surface CD3 (sCD3)-negative T cells, such as normal or abnormal immature T-cell precursors. Here, we assess surface and cytoplasmic TRBC1 expression patterns in the differential diagnosis of T-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL) vs normal thymocyte expansions. Methods Forty-three samples containing T-ALL, thymoma, normal thymus, and/or indolent T-lymphoblastic proliferation (i-TLBP), were evaluated. Results All 24 cases with normal thymocytes or i-TLBPs revealed a characteristic and reproducible sCD3/sTRBC1 expression pattern indicative of polytypic T-cell maturation. In contrast, all 19 T-ALLs lacked this polytypic maturation pattern and were either completely negative for sCD3/sTRBC1 or showed a minor sCD3-positive subset with a monotypic TRBC1 expression pattern. Cytoplasmic TRBC1 evaluation in 9 T-ALLs demonstrated a monotypic intracellular TRBC1-positive (n = 4) or TRBC1-negative (n = 5) expression, indicative of clonality. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate flow cytometric evaluation of surface and cytoplasmic TRBC1 expression can aid detection of T-cell clonality and differential diagnosis of immature T-cell proliferations.

T-cell clonality testing is integral to the diagnostic work-up of T-cell malignancies; however, current methods lack specificity and sensitivity, which can make the diagnostic process difficult. The recent discovery of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for human TRBC1 will greatly improve the outlook for T-cell malignancy diagnostics. The anti-TRBC1 mAb can be used in flow cytometry immunophenotyping assays to provide a low-cost, robust, and highly specific test that detects clonality of immunophenotypically distinct T-cell populations. Recent studies demonstrate the clinical utility of this approach in several contexts; use of this antibody in appropriately designed flow cytometry panels improves detection of circulating disease in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, eliminates the need for molecular clonality testing in the context of large granular lymphocyte leukemia, and provides more conclusive results in the context of many other T-cell disorders. It is worth noting that the increased ability to detect discrete clonal T-cell populations means that identification of T-cell clones of uncertain clinical significance (T-CUS) will become more common. This review discusses this new antibody and describes how it defines clonal T-cells. We present and discuss assay design and summarize findings to date about the use of flow cytometry TRBC1 analysis in the field of diagnostics, including lymph node and fluid sample investigations. We also make suggestions about how to apply the assay results in clinical work-ups, including how to interpret and report findings of T-CUS. Finally, we highlight areas that we think will benefit from further research.

Introduction: Richter transformation (RT) refers to transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or other aggressive lymphomas. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RT with CNS involvement remain undefined. Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT diagnosed from 4/1993 to 4/2018 was identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. RT cases with CNS involvement were further reviewed, with clinical characteristics, treatment and follow-up data abstracted. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CNS involvement to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 204 CLL patients with biopsy-proven RT, 15 patients had documented CNS involvement by imaging (parenchymal n=11, ocular n=1, parenchymal and ocular n=1, leptomeningeal n=1, cranial and spinal nerve roots n=1). Biopsy confirmation of CNS involvement was available in 11 patients. Of these 15 patients, 10 had CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, and 5 patients developed CNS involvement at RT progression, with a median time from RT diagnosis to CNS involvement of 14.9 months (range 2.8-41.1). Prior to RT, 11 patients (73.3%) received no treatment for CLL, 3 (53.4%) received chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only (1-3 lines), and 1 patient (6.7%) received CIT (1 line) and ibrutinib. CLL FISH results were available in 9 patients, with del(17p) in 2, trisomy 12 in 2, del(13q) in 3, and normal results in 2. One patient had TP53 mutation (FISH result unavailable). IgHV mutation status was known in 3 patients and 1 was unmutated. The median time to RT was 4.4 years (range 0-11.4). The median age at RT diagnosis was 70 years (range 59-78), and 9 (60%) were male. The histology of RT was DLBCL in all 15 patients (diagnosed by CNS biopsy in 8 and other biopsies in 7), with GCB subtype in 6 and non-GCB subtype in 3. MYC rearrangement was detected in 4 of 6 patients tested, and 2 of those also had BCL-2 rearrangement (MYC/BCL-2 double hit). Of the 10 patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, 4 had isolated CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or vitreous biopsy [n=2]). All 4 patients were treated with high dose (HD) methotrexate (MTX) based regimen, and 3 patients achieved complete remission (CR) and underwent autologous stem cell transplant with continued CR, while 1 patient achieved partial remission and received whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) at disease progression. Six patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or CSF examination [n=2] in 4; the other 2 were diagnosed by imaging). All 6 patients received CNS directed therapy (HD MTX [n=5] or WBRT [n=1]) as well as systemic therapy (R-CHOP [n=5] or HyperCVAD [n=1]), with varied short duration of disease control (Figure 1A). Of the 5 patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (after 1-2 lines of therapy including first-line R-CHOP), 2 had isolated CNS involvement (1 was confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only). Both were treated with HD MTX based regimen, and 1 achieved a durable remission of 2 years but eventually had CNS relapse, while the other had no response and received WBRT with limited benefit. Three patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (2 were confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only), and all 3 patients were treated with HD MTX based regimen but all had CNS disease progression within 3 months (Figure 1A). The OS after CNS involvement for all 15 RT patients was 9.4 months (95% CI 2.3-19.1). Patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis had numerically longer OS compared to patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (median OS 13.0 vs 4.1 months, P = 0.137; Figure 1B). Patients with isolated CNS involvement had better OS compared to patients with both CNS and systemic involvement (median OS 32.0 vs 5.3 months, P = 0.009; Figure 1C). Three of the 4 patients who only had isolated CNS involvement at the time of RT diagnosis have ongoing long term remission and survival (Figure 1A). Conclusions: In this large series of RT, approximately 1 in 14 patients had CNS involvement. Patients with isolated CNS involvement appeared to have favorable long term outcome; however, RT patients with both systemic and CNS involvement had extremely poor survival. The incidence, molecular characteristics, and optimal management of RT with CNS involvement in the novel agent era warrant future multicenter studies. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Nowakowski:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Introduction: Richter's syndrome (RS) represents transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into a highly aggressive lymphoma with dismal prognosis. Transcriptomic alterations have been described in CLL but most studies focused on peripheral blood samples with minimal data on RS-involved tissue. Moreover, transcriptomic features of RS have not been well defined in the era of CLL novel therapies. In this study we investigated transcriptomic profiles of CLL/RS-involved nodal tissue using samples from a clinical trial cohort of refractory CLL and RS patients treated with Pembrolizumab (NCT02332980). Methods: Nodal samples from 9 RS and 4 CLL patients in MC1485 trial cohort were reviewed and classified as previously published (Ding et al, Blood 2017). All samples were collected prior to Pembrolizumab treatment. Targeted gene expression profiling of 789 immune-related genes were performed on FFPE nodal samples using Nanostring nCounter® Analysis System (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA). Differential expression analysis was performed using NanoStringDiff. Genes with 2 fold-change in expression with a false-discovery rate less than 5% were considered differentially expressed. Results: The details for the therapy history of this cohort were illustrated in Figure 1a. All patients exposed to prior ibrutinib before the tissue biopsy had developed clinical progression while receiving ibrutinib. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using the 300 most variable genes in expression revealed two clusters: C1 and C2 (Figure 1b). C1 included 4 RS and 3 CLL treated with prior chemotherapy without prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with prior ibrutinib. C2 included 1 CLL and 3 RS received prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with chemotherapy. The segregation of gene expression profiles in samples was largely driven by recent exposure to ibrutinib. In C1 cluster (majority had no prior ibrutinb), RS and CLL samples were clearly separated into two subgroups (Figure 1b). In C2 cluster, CLL 8 treated with ibrutinib showed more similarity in gene expression to RS, than to other CLL samples treated with chemotherapy. In comparison of C2 to C1, we identified 71 differentially expressed genes, of which 34 genes were downregulated and 37 were upregulated in C2. Among the upregulated genes in C2 (majority had prior ibrutinib) are known immune modulating genes including LILRA6, FCGR3A, IL-10, CD163, CD14, IL-2RB (figure 1c). Downregulated genes in C2 are involved in B cell activation including CD40LG, CD22, CD79A, MS4A1 (CD20), and LTB, reflecting the expected biological effect of ibrutinib in reducing B cell activation. Among the 9 RS samples, we compared gene profiles between the two groups of RS with or without prior ibrutinib therapy. 38 downregulated genes and 10 upregulated genes were found in the 4 RS treated with ibrutinib in comparison with 5 RS treated with chemotherapy. The top upregulated genes in the ibrutinib-exposed group included PTHLH, S100A8, IGSF3, TERT, and PRKCB, while the downregulated genes in these samples included MS4A1, LTB and CD38 (figure 1d). In order to delineate the differences of RS vs CLL, we compared gene expression profiles between 5 RS samples and 3 CLL samples that were treated with only chemotherapy. RS samples showed significant upregulation of 129 genes and downregulation of 7 genes. Among the most significantly upregulated genes are multiple genes involved in monocyte and myeloid lineage regulation including TNFSF13, S100A9, FCN1, LGALS2, CD14, FCGR2A, SERPINA1, and LILRB3. Conclusion: Our study indicates that ibrutinib-resistant, RS-involved tissues are characterized by downregulation of genes in B cell activation, but with PRKCB and TERT upregulation. Furthermore, RS-involved nodal tissues display the increased expression of genes involved in myeloid/monocytic regulation in comparison with CLL-involved nodal tissues. These findings implicate that differential therapies for RS and CLL patients need to be adopted based on their prior therapy and gene expression signatures. Studies using large sample size will be needed to verify this hypothesis. Figure Disclosures Zhao: Merck: Current Employment. Blumenschein:Merck: Current Employment. Yearley:Merck: Current Employment. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Parikh:Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kenderian:Sunesis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Torque: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kay:Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Clonal cytopenias of Undetermined Significance (CCUS) have a higher risk of progression to myeloid neoplasm (MN) compared to idiopathic cytopenias of undetermined significance (ICUS) (Malcovati et al., Blood, 2017). The implementation of flow cytometric (FC) immune-phenotyping and next generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical practice has improved the diagnosis of these entities but the clinical significance and interaction of these abnormal results are still unknown. In this study we investigated predictive factors that play role in survival and progression to MN in patients with ICUS/CCUS. Methods: Patients (Pts) who had undergone evaluation for unexplained cytopenia and had undergone FC and bone marrow morphological assessment between 3/2015-3/2020 at Mayo Clinic Rochester were included. Pts were excluded if a malignant hematological disorder was diagnosed prior to the time of FC. FC included evaluation of the following parameters: Abnormal expression of HLA-DR/CD13, CD2, CD7, CD45, and CD56 on blasts; and abnormal CD13/CD16 expression and side scatter on granulocytic cells. NGS panel up to 2018 included 34 genes, ASXL1, BCOR, BRAF, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, GATA1, GATA2, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, MYD88, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PTPN11, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, TERT, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1, and ZRSR2; in 2018, BRAF was omitted and 12 genes were added, ANRD26, DDX41, ELANE, ETNK1, KDM6A, MYD88, NOTCH1, RAD21, SH2B3, SRP72, SMC3, and STAG2. Results: Characteristics: Of 490 consecutive pts, 238 (median age 69 years (range 19-92), 66% males) met our inclusion criteria as ICUS. 86 (36%) pts had CCUS (abnormal cytogenetics and/or tested positive for pathogenic mutations on NGS). After a median follow-up of 28 months (95% CI: 20 to 31 months), 21 (25%) patients developed MN and 23 (27%) died during follow-up. Comparing ICUS vs CCUS: upon comparing CCUS pts to ICUS, several factors were found to be significantly different: CCUS pts were older (p= .02); majority male (p= .04), had more abnormal HLA-DR/CD13 (p <.0001), more side-scattered light by FC (p <.0001), more pancytopenia on follow up (p= .02) and more morphologic atypia (<.0001). Overall survival (OS) outcomes in CCUS: Several covariates were significant in univariate models, and model selection was used to generate a risk score based on abnormal CD7, abnormal CD13/CD16, abnormal HLA-DR/CD13, splenomegaly and history of prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy (range: 0 - 4; HR=2.58, [95 CI: 1.69 - 3.94], p<.0001). Risk scores were grouped as low risk (score=0), intermediate risk (score=1), and high risk (score=2+), with estimated 2-yr-OS of 95%, 84%, 40%, respectively (Figure 1). An extended risk score model including NGS factors added ASXL1 and IDH1 mutation status to the previous model (range: 0 - 6; HR=2.72, [95 CI 1.82 - 4.06], p<0.0001). MN-free survival (MNFS) in CCUS: 37 pts either progressed to MN and/or died with a median follow up time for MNFS of 22.4 months. Similar for OS, model selection approaches yielded a composite risk score: splenomegaly, BCOR mutation status, mutation in RAS signaling pathway, abnormal expression of flow markers CD13/CD16, HLA-DR/CD13 or CD7 (HR=3.23, [95 CI: 1.90 - 5.49], p=<0.0001). Risk scores were grouped as low risk (score=0), intermediate risk (score=1), and high risk (score ≥ 2), with estimated 1-yr MNFS of 84%, 74%, and 31%, respectively (Figure 2). Conclusion: CCUS has unique features compared to ICUS. Several factors, including clinical characteristics, immune-phenotyping by FC, and somatic mutations have important impact on risk of progression to MN and on overall survival. Our findings serve as proof-of-concept that such integrated models could help identify CCUS patients at higher risks for progression to MN or death. They can guide treatment accordingly and should be evaluated further. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are broadly classified into ALK-positive and ALK-negative. ALK-negative ALCL is composed of DUSP22-rearranged, TP63-rearranged, and triple-negative cases. While lymphoid enhancer–binding factor (LEF1) plays a crucial role in T-cell maturation, limited data exist on its expression in T-cell lymphomas, including ALCL. We characterized the expression of LEF1 in ALCL by immunohistochemistry. LEF1 nuclear expression in the neoplastic cells was graded as negative (0), weak (1+), intermediate (2+), or strong (3+), with the percentage of LEF1-positive neoplastic cells recorded. A total of 45 ALCL cases were evaluated, of which 16 were DUSP22-rearranged. About 93.8% (15/16) DUSP22-rearranged cases showed strong expression of LEF1 in >75% tumor cells, compared with 3.4% (1/29) non–DUSP22-rearranged ALCL (P<0.0001). The striking association of LEF1 protein overexpression with DUPS22 rearrangement in ALCL was further confirmed by a gene expression profiling study which revealed significantly higher LEF1 expression in DUSP22-rearranged ALCL compared with other ALCL subtypes (P=0.0001). Although LEF1 is a nuclear mediator of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, CTNNB1 RNA and protein levels were not overexpressed in LEF1-positive cases, suggesting the LEF1 overexpression in ALCL may not be involved in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. The strong and uniform LEF1 expression pattern has a high positive predictive value (93.8%) and high negative predictive value (96%) for DUSP22 rearrangement in ALK-negative ALCL. The combination of characteristic morphologic and molecular features of DUSP22-rearranged cases with the high LEF1 expression further emphasizes that DUSP22-rearranged ALCL represents a distinct clinicopathologic subset of ALCL.

INTRODUCTION T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of mature T-cells. Although responses may been seen with initial alemtuzumab-based therapy, relapse is inevitable and relapsed/refractory disease carries a dismal prognosis. T-PLL has shown in vitro sensitivity to venetoclax, and short-lived clinical responses to venetoclax monotherapy (Smith, Blood Advances 2020; Boidol, Blood 2017) or when given in combination with pentostatin (Alfayez, Leukemia & Lymphoma 2020). Given the lack of standard treatment options, we reviewed the outcomes of patients (pts) with relapsed T-PLL on venetoclax-based therapy. METHODS Using an institutional clinical database of pts with T-PLL seen in the Division of Hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, all pts treated with venetoclax or venetoclax-based therapies in a relapsed/refractory setting were identified. Clinical, laboratory, and pathology data, as well as treatment dosing and toxicity were ascertained retrospectively from the medical records. Diagnostic criteria and response definitions were utilized as per the T-PLL International Study Group (Staber, Blood 2019). RESULTS Between 8/2017 and 5/2020, 9 pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL treated with venetoclax were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 49-75), and one-third were male. Baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Rearrangement of TCL1 family genes was present in all 8 pts evaluated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using conventional cytogenetics, a complex karyotype was present in 4/6 pts tested. The median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-4), including alemtuzumab in 8 of 9 pts (intravenous 7/8); and two pts had undergone prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (1 allogeneic; 1 autologous) after achieving a complete remission. Additional individual pt details are included in Table 2. Prior to venetoclax therapy initiation, 2 pts had B-symptoms (2 night sweats; 1 fever) and 6 pts had an ECOG score ≥ 2. Lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly were present in 6 and 9 pts, respectively. Extranodal involvement included 3 pts with cutaneous involvement and 5 pts with effusions (4 ascites; 1 pleural). The target maximum dose of venetoclax (800 mg [n=4]; 400 mg [n=1]) was reached by 5 pts at a median of 12 days (range 7-40 days). The other 4 pts had disease progression after a median of 10 days (range 5-22 days) during the dose ramp-up, including 2 pts undergoing rapid dose escalation. Altogether, 6 of the 9 pts initiated venetoclax with a rapid dose escalation. Bendamustine was given with venetoclax in 5/9 pts; median number of cycles 1 (range 1-4) with variable starting dosing (range 60-100 mg/m2). The disease control rate was 56%; best response was partial remission (PR) in 4 (44%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 1 (11%) pt. The 1 pt with SD received venetoclax monotherapy; however, the overall response rate among pts who received the combination of venetoclax and bendamustine was 80% (4/5 pts). One pt with a partial remission met all criteria for complete remission but did not have a confirmatory bone marrow biopsy. Cutaneous disease improved in 2 of 3 pts (both with PR as best response), and effusions improved in 2 of 5 pts (1 PR and 1 SD as best response). Among those in PR, the median decrease in absolute lymphocyte count was 67x109/L and the median decrease in lactate dehydrogenase was 1,162 U/L (normal range 122-222 U/L). Median duration of treatment for all pts was 42 days (range 4-201 days). All pts ultimately died during follow-up with a median overall survival of 53 days (range 4-464 days); Figure 1. All pts experienced at least one adverse event and 8 of 9 pts had a grade ≥ 3 toxicity, most commonly edema (n=7) and neutropenia (n=6). Five pts required dose interruptions due to neutropenia (n=3), tumor lysis syndrome (n=1), and edema (n=1). Three pts had dose reductions, all from 800 mg dosing, due to hematologic toxicity (n=2) and nausea (n=1). No pts discontinued venetoclax as a result of adverse events. CONCLUSION Treatment of pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL remains a significant unmet need. The 9 pts described herein represent the largest cohort of pts treated with venetoclax-based therapy in this setting to the current date. Despite initial reports of clinical efficacy, our results show that venetoclax (with or without bendamustine) has modest efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-PLL after prior alemtuzumab exposure. Disclosures Parikh: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy. Bennani:Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Kay:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax: off-label use in treatment of relapsed/refractory T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia

Introduction: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30-positive T-cell lymphomas classified into ALK-positive and ALK-negative. The ALK-negative ALCLs are a genetically heterogeneous group that includes DUSP22-rearranged, TP63-rearranged and triple-negative cases. The DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs characteristically grow in a diffuse sheet-like pattern and are composed of intermediate-sized monomorphous hallmark cells, admixed with smaller cells with prominent nuclear indentations and occasional central nuclear pseudo inclusions (King RL et al, Am J Surg Pathol. 2016). Further, DUSP22-rearranged ALCL is a molecularly distinct subset of ALCL with a unique immunogenic phenotype that portends a favorable prognosis (Luchtel RA et al. Blood 2018). Lymphoid enhancer binding factor (LEF1) is a crucial nuclear mediator of the Wnt/ β-catenin pathway and a transcription factor involved in T-cell maturation. However, limited data exists on the association of LEF1 in T-cell lymphomas, including ALCL. The aims of this study were to explore LEF1 expression by immunohistochemistry in different subsets of ALCLs and to analyze the association of Wnt/ β-catenin pathway in this cohort. Methods: After approval by the institutional review board, we screened pathology reports from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2019 and identified patients with a diagnosis of ALCL using our institutional database. Details on fluorescence in situ hybridization studies in ALK-negative cases were documented. Immunostaining for LEF1 and β catenin was performed on all cases where formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue was available. The presence or absence of β catenin nuclear staining was recorded. LEF1 nuclear staining in the neoplastic ALCL cells was graded as negative (0), weak (1+), intermediate (2+) or strong (3+) and the percentage of LEF1-positive neoplastic cells was detailed (Figure 1). LEF1 scoring was performed by manual counting of the stained nuclei out of all tumor nuclei by two pathologists (A.R. and M.S.) and the grading was reviewed by another pathologist (P.J.K.). Results: We evaluated 45 ALCL cases, including 41 (91.1%) ALK-negative and 4 (8.9%) ALK-positive ALCLs. Among the ALK-negative ALCLs, there were16 DUSP22-rearranged, and 25 non-DUSP22-rearanged (7 TP63-rearranged and 18 triple-negative) cases. Fifteen (94%) of 16 DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs showed strong expression of LEF1 in &gt;75% tumor cells (Figure 2). In contrast, this strong and uniform LEF1 overexpression was only detected in 1 of 29 (3%) of the remaining ALCL cases (P &lt;.0001) (Table 1). We previously characterized a distinctive molecular signature in ALK-negative ALCLs with DUSP22-rearrangements using gene expression microarray analysis on frozen ALCL tissue samples (Luchtel RA et al. Blood 2018). On examining LEF1 gene expression in this previously published dataset, DUSP22 -rearranged cases had significantly higher LEF1 expression than any other genetic subtype (triple-negative, TP63-rearranged, or ALK-positive). Overall, mean LEF1 expression was 6.3-fold higher in ALCLs with DUSP22 rearrangements than in ALCLs without DUSP22-rearrangements (P=0.0001). LEF1 is a coactivator of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway; therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize the overexpression of LEF1 may promote Wnt/β-catenin signaling. However, all LEF1-positive cases were negative for β-catenin by immunohistochemistry, suggesting that LEF1 overexpression is independent of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway signaling in these cases. Conclusions: There is a striking association between high LEF1 expression and DUSP22-rearrangements in ALCLs. The strong and uniform LEF1 expression pattern has a high positive predictive value (94%) and high negative predictive value (96%) for DUSP22- rearrangement in ALK-negative ALCLs (Table 2). The combination of characteristic morphologic and molecular features of DUSP22-rearranged cases with the unique LEF1 expression further emphasizes that DUSP22-rearranged ALCL represents a distinct clinicopathologic subset of ALCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Novel targeted therapies have revolutionized treatments for both upfront and relapsed CLL. However, effective therapies have not been established for progressive CLL after developing resistance to both BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitors. Similarly, Richter's transformation (RS) remains an area of unmet clinical need. Hypothesizing that progressive CLL and RS possess significant but differential molecular abnormalities, we aimed to dissect the initial genomic profiles in a clinical cohort of patients seen in our routine clinical practice using targeted DNA sequencing and transcriptome analysis. Methods: Twelve CLL patients who had lymph node biopsies for evaluation of clinical progression at Mayo Clinic were included in this study. RNA sequencing and targeted DNA sequencing on a focused oncology panel of 1,711 genes were performed on Illumina HiSeq through Tempus Labs, Inc. (Chicago, IL). Differentially expressed (DE) genes were identified using edgeR at the cutoff of FDR &lt;=0.05 and fold-change &gt;=2. Somatic mutations and copy number alternations (CNAs) were identified through Mutect2 and PatternCNV, respectively. CN loss was defined to have log2(ratio) &lt;=-0.93 and CN gain to have log2(ratio) &gt;= 0.585. Pathway analysis was done through the Enrichr package. Results: Among the 12 patients, 7 had confirmed RS (large cell lymphoma histology) and 5 had CLL based on pathological findings. The clinical and therapeutic history for each patient is illustrated in Fig 1A. FISH results from 11 of the patients showed chromosomal abnormalities including del(13q), del(11q), del(17p) and tri(12) (Fig 1A). Hierarchical clustering of expression profiles from the top 10,000 most variable genes in expression revealed two major clusters (Fig 1A). Cluster C1 contains five RS cases, of which case S207 did not receive ibrutinib, S256 was on high-dose steroid and anti-CD20 post-ibrutinib therapy for &gt;1 year before biopsy, and case S025 was treated for &lt; 6 months with ibrutinib. These three form a subgroup separate from the other two RS in C1 who had 8 and 42 months of continuous ibrutinib therapy pre-biopsy, respectively. C2 contains two RS and five CLL cases. Within C2, CLL and RS cases showed similar transcriptomic profiles. Over 90% of the DE genes showed an overall increase of expression in C1, particularly within the 3-sample subgroup (Fig 1B). These genes are enriched in pathways known to play key roles in CLL, including PI3K-AKT signaling, NOTCH signaling and RAS/MAPK signaling, while genes up-regulated in C2 are enriched in WNT signaling. The results suggest marked differences in gene expression profiles and indicate molecular heterogeneity among RS and CLL patients. In addition, targeted DNA sequencing data were analyzed to identify somatic mutations and CNAs. The analysis confirmed the FISH results of del(13q), del(11q), del(17p) or tri(12) in 8 of the cases (Fig 1A). The mutation profiles are similar between C1 and C2 for the recurrently mutated genes published in CLL. However, we identified recurrent CNAs that occurred preferentially in C1 (covering 9 genes) or C2 (48 genes) (Fig 1C). Manual inspections of the reads coverage revealed that 5 of the 9 genes are from chr1q21.1 to chr1q22 that showed clear CN gains largely in C1. Of the 48 genes, 6 are from chrXp11 that showed CN losses, and 27 are from chr17q12 to chr17q25 that showed CN gains. Therefore, the majority of the 57 genes are from large-scale CNAs. Notably, for the CNAs mostly occurring in C2, the affected genes are enriched in WNT signaling, Cell cycle/protein kinase activity and chromatin modifying enzymes. Collectively, the results support the variability of transcriptomic signatures and genetic lesions between RS and CLL. Conclusion: This study revealed a noticeable heterogeneity in gene expression and genetic variation between RS and CLL, albeit in a small cohort. The vast majority of the DE genes showed elevated expression in C1 containing only RS cases, and these genes are enriched in PI3K-AKT signaling, NOTCH signaling, and RAS/MAPK signaling. The pattern is more pronounced for a subgroup in C1 who were overall less exposed to ibrutinib. For somatic variation, there is a strong tendency of occurrence of recurrent CNAs towards C2 cohort, mainly involving gains of chr17q and deletions of chrXp11. Given these advances we are encouraged to further pursue the genetic abnormalities with defined roles in aggressive and transformed CLL. Disclosures Liu: Eisal: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GRAIL: Research Funding; Menarini Silicon Biosystems: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding. Parikh:Genentech: Honoraria; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kenderian:Gilead: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding.