Kourelis, Taxiarchis

Compared with traditional bulk sequencing technologies, single-cell technologies have advantages to evaluate cellular heterogeneity and investigate the evolution of cellular subpopulations from the tumor and microenvironment. Application of single-cell sequencing in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is especially beneficial given MM is a highly heterogeneous disease with uncontrolled clonal expansion of plasma cells. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has been previously utilized to understand this hematopoietic malignancy in both tumor and immune populations in MM (Ledergor G. et al., 2018, Zavidij, O. et al., 2020). Mass cytometry (CyTOF) has also been used to identify the expansion of novel memory B cells in MM. (Hansmann, L. et al., 2015). Among the various single cell techniques, cellular indexing of transcriptomes and epitopes by sequencing (CITE-seq) is a multimodal approach with simultaneous quantification of single-cell transcriptomes and surface proteins. Since these three single-cell approaches enable the identification of cell types, cell states and characterization of cellular heterogeneity at transcriptomic and/or protein levels, understanding the concordance of the measurements among these three modalities is of great interest. We applied scRNA-seq, CyTOF and CITE-seq on four baseline samples of CD138-negative 'immune cell' fractions from patients enrolled in the MMRF CoMMpass study (NCT01454297). Two subjects were fast progressors (PFS < 18 months) and two subjects were non-progressors (PFS not reached). With multi-center collaboration coordinated by Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF), each sample was subject to scRNA-seq and CyTOF by 3 independent centers. All sites received aliquots of the same sample. On average, 1,060 immune cells were detected in each sample using scRNA-seq and >64K CD45+ cells were detected using CyTOF. CITE-seq was performed in one center and 4,805 CD138-negative immune cells were identified on average. To compare cell type abundance between scRNA-seq, CyTOF and CITE-seq, we calculated the cell subset frequency of each immune population relative to the CD45+ populations. Overall, all three approaches were concordant while there is a stronger concordance between scRNA-seq and CyTOF. Cell type abundance is especially consistent for B cells, monocytes/macrophages, and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) among the 3 methods. For the same patient of interest, natural killer (NK) cell frequency was detected at the lowest level in CyTOF relative to scRNA and CITE-seq. The T cell population showed the highest discrepancy among techniques, with highest abundance in scRNA-seq followed by CyTOF and lowest abundance in CITE-seq. Interestingly, CITE-seq detected far less CD4 T cells compared to the other two techniques while CD8 T cell frequency did not show drastic differences. In addition to cell type abundance, we further examined the concordance of expression of cell type signature genes between scRNA-seq and CyTOF. Overall, expression between RNA-level and protein-level is positively correlated with typical cell type markers highly expressed in both techniques, especially in the following cell populations: CD8+ T cells (CD3, CD8), NK cells (CD56, GranzymeB/GZMB, NKG2A/KLRC1), B cells (CD19, CD38), Monocytes (CD14, CD11c/ITGAX, CD33). To note, although the concordance in CD4+ T cells is generally good, we found the expression of CD4 is higher in CyTOF compared to scRNA-seq whereas CD127/IL7R tends to be overexpressed in scRNA-seq. This could explain why IL7R is often identified as a differentially expressed gene (DEG) in CD4+ T cell population while CD4 is barely seen in DEG list in scRNA-seq analysis. It is also interesting to notice that the expression of most NK cell markers has strong concordance between scRNA-seq and CyTOF except NKG2D/KLRK1, which has much higher expression in CyTOF relative to scRNA-seq. Our preliminary results suggested good concordance of immune cell type abundance identified in CyTOF, scRNA-seq and CITE-seq as well as concordant expression of some canonical cell type markers between RNA level and protein level. This work provides the field with reference data sets and shows more detailed examination of NK and T cell subsets is needed when handling single cell sequencing with different modalities. Disclosures Dhodapkar: Roche/Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Lava Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kumar:MedImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Gnjatic:Neon Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncoMed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Agenus: Research Funding; Janssen R&D: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bhasin:Canomiiks Inc: Current equity holder in private company, Other: Co-Founder.

Introduction: The utility of amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after starting treatment has not been explored. Given the high early mortality in this disease, restaging remote from the diagnosis may have clinical value. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used staging systems are prognostic when applied at 3 and 6 months from starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration impacts survival. Methods: This is a retrospective study including patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis diagnosed between January, 1st 2006 and June, 30th 2019 and were seen in Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN within 90 days of diagnosis; the analysis included 535 and 301 patients who had restaging data available for at least one of the staging systems at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients were grouped into 4 stages using the 2015 European modification of the Mayo 2004 staging system based on values of cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin T and NTproBNP), and using the Mayo 2012 staging system based on cardiac biomarkers and the difference in serum free light chain concentration (dFLC). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of re-staging until death or last follow up. Results: Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 3 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was 11.8 [95%CI: 11.4-not reached (NR)], 10.8 (95%CI: 9.4-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 2.8-6.7), and 1.1 (95%CI: 0.7-2.6) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 3 months, OS was 11.8 (95%CI: 10.9-NR), 9.0 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.2 (95%CI: 3.3-6.1), and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.7-1.1) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1a &b). Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 6 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was NR (95%CI: NR-NR), 9.8 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.4 (95%CI: 3.2-9.0) and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.6-3.7) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 6 months, OS was NR (95%CI: 8.4-NR), NR (95%CI: 7.9-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 3.0-6.5), and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.2-1.8) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1c &d). On multivariate analysis, advanced (stage > 2) modified Mayo 2004 stage (HR: 1.6, P=0.004) and advanced (stage > 2) Mayo 2012 stage (HR: 2.4, P<0.001) at 3 months were associated with decreased survival independent of cardiac response, hematologic response, and transplantation status. Although advanced Mayo 2004 stage at 6 months was associated with decreased survival, it was not statistically significant (HR: 1.5, P=0.09). In contrast, advanced Mayo 2012 stage at 6 months was independently associated with decreased survival (HR: 2.1, P=0.02). For both systems, worsening stage at 3 months or at 6 months was associated with a worse survival than retaining the original stage. In contrast, improving stage as compared to remaining in same stage was not associated with better survival at 3 or 6 months (Table 1). When the analysis was restricted to patients who had an advanced stage at diagnosis, improving stage at 3 months was associated with longer survival compared to retaining the original stage, with both modified Mayo 2004 (10.8 vs. 3.3 years, P<0.001) and Mayo 2012 (8.1 vs. 2.6 years, P<0.001) staging systems. At 6 months, stage improvement was associated with longer survival than retaining the original stage when the modified Mayo 2004 staging system was used (NR vs. 5.0 years, P=0.02), but it was not statistically significant when the Mayo 2012 staging system was used (5.9 vs. 3.7 years, P=0.12). Conclusion: The modified Mayo 2004 and the Mayo 2012 staging systems have independent prognostic value when used for restaging after 3 and 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Migration to a higher stage from diagnosis predicts decreased survival, compared to retaining the same stage. Stage improvement is associated with a better OS in patients with advanced stage at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Alnylam, Intellia, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Prothena, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Consultancy; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, 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; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Background: PT-112 is a novel pyrophosphate-platinum conjugate with a multi-modal mechanism of action that induces immunogenic cell death and is not susceptible to DNA-repair drug resistance pathways. In phase I studies in solid tumors, PT-112 demonstrated safety and efficacy as single agent and in combination with PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor avelumab, crossing a range of dose levels (DL) and tumor types, including in heavily pre-treated patients (pts) non-responsive to immunotherapy and refractory to other modalities. Non-clinical, in vivo research using advanced imaging technology demonstrated that PT-112 reached the highest concentrations in bone tissue (osteotropism). Moreover, PT-112 was highly active in the orthotopic, immune-competent Vk*MYC mouse model of multiple myeloma, including drug-resistant transplant variants. Thus, a rationale for PT-112 as an investigational candidate in multiple myeloma was established. Here, we present results of a phase I dose escalation study of PT-112 in pts with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Methods: A 3+3 design was used to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for PT-112 (28-day cycle IV days 1, 8, 15) in pts with evaluable RRMM who had exhausted available therapies (Tx), with adequate bone marrow (abs neutrophil count ≥ 1.0 x 109/L; platelet count ≥ 50 x 109/L; and hemoglobin ≥ 8.0 g/dL) and renal function (calculated creatinine clearance ≥ 30 mL/min), and ECOG PS 0-2. Results: A total of 24 pts were treated with PT-112 monotherapy across 6 DLs: 125 mg/m2, 3 pts; 180 mg/m2, 4 pts; 250 mg/m2, 5 pts; 300 mg/m2, 4 pts; 360 mg/m2, 4 pts; 420 mg/m2, 4 pts. Patients had a median age of 72 years and were heavily pre-treated, with a median of 8 prior lines of systemic Tx: 22 (92%) pts were triple-class refractory with 19 (79%) pts penta-refractory, and 3 (13%) pts refractory to BCMA-based therapies. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were thrombocytopenia (58%), neutropenia (42%), diarrhea (38%), and nausea (38%). 38% of pts had ≥1 grade 3 non-hematologic TRAE, with no grade 4 non-hematologic TRAEs reported. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of grade 4 neutropenia occurred at the 420 mg/m2 DL. In addition, due to frequent dose reductions and modifications at this DL, the safety committee declared 360 mg/m2 as the RP2D. Among 8 patients who received a starting dose at / above the RP2D, 2 had stable disease and 4 experienced responses to PT-112 Tx. These included a confirmed partial response (PR) achieved in a 79-year-old pt with kappa free light chain (FLC) disease treated at 360 mg/m2, whose previous Tx included combination regimens with most approved therapies (penta-refractory) and stem cell transplantation. FLC levels declined by 65% from baseline on PT-112 therapy and the pt remained progression free for 4.5 months. A 72-year-old pt treated at the 420 mg/m2 DL, reduced to 250mg/m2 every other week over the course of Tx due to grade 3-4 cytopenias, had a confirmed minor response. Prior Tx with multiple lines given over 9 years included stem cell transplantation, most approved therapies (penta-refractory), prior investigational antibody and CAR-T cell Tx (primary refractory to CAR-T). The patient was M-protein negative, kappa FLC levels declined by 32% following the first dose reduction, and the pt remained progression free and clinically stable without complaints for 4.5 months. Additionally, two transient, unconfirmed PRs occurred in patients at the 420mg/m2 DL: in a triple-class-refractory 82-year-old previously treated with 5 lines of Tx, with 70% reduction in kappa FLC during cycle 1; and in a penta-refractory 85-year-old, who experienced disappearance of M-protein during cycle 1 and Gr 4 neutropenia (DLT). Conclusions: PT-112 monotherapy was feasible and well tolerated in this heavily pre-treated, multi-refractory multiple myeloma population, and the Phase I clinical data appear to validate the developmental hypothesis, built upon activity in the Vk*MYC mouse model of multiple myeloma. Responses were confirmed in 25% of patients treated at / above the RP2D using single-agent PT-112, an encouraging result in a dose escalation trial conducted in heavily refractory patients. Activity of PT-112 in RRMM patients may be explained by its osteotropism and its unique mechanism of action compared to other drug classes used to treat this disease. Further clinical study of PT-112 in RRMM is warranted in a phase 2 clinical trial. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Vogl:Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Active Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Ames:Phosplatin Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Yim:Phosplatin Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Price:Phosplatin Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Jimeno:Phosplatin Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company.

Abstract Gastrointestinal complications of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment are common and include nausea, constipation, and diarrhea. However, acute gastrointestinal events like perforations are rare. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with MM that had colonic perforations during their treatment. This is a retrospective study that included patients from all three Mayo Clinic sites who had MM and developed a colonic perforation. All patients were diagnosed with colonic perforations based on CT scans and were surgically treated. Patients diagnosed with AL amyloidosis, a perforated colon complicating neutropenic colitis during ASCT and those with perforation due to colonic cancer were excluded. A high dose of dexamethasone was defined as ≥40 mg dexamethasone once a week. Thirty patients met inclusion criteria. All patients received steroids at doses ≥10 mg once weekly prior to the perforation, while four (11%) were on high‐dose dexamethasone without chemotherapy. Fourteen patients were given high doses of dexamethasone. Twenty‐five patients required ostomies with all surviving surgery. Twenty‐four perforations (80%) were associated with diverticulitis. Treatment with steroids was resumed in 23 patients with no further gastrointestinal complications. The median OS was 20 months following perforation (IQR 8–59). Within the same timeframe 5854 patients were treated at Mayo Clinic for MM, making the risk of bowel perforation 0.5%. Intestinal perforations in MM are rare and, in our series, always occurred with dexamethasone ≥10 mg per week. Urgent surgery is lifesaving and resumption of anti‐myeloma treatment appears to be safe.

Abstract Purpose: Rearrangements involving the MYC protooncogene are common in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, but their prognostic significance is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of MYC rearrangement on clinical characteristics, treatment response, and survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Experimental Design: This is a retrospective study including 1,342 patients seen in Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, from January 2006 to January 2018, who had cytogenetic testing by FISH at diagnosis, including MYC testing using the break apart FISH probe (8q24.1). Results: A rearrangement involving MYC was found in 8% of patients and was associated with elevated β2-microglobulin, ≥50% bone marrow plasma cells, IgA multiple myeloma, and the cooccurrence of trisomies. There were no differences in overall response rates between patients with and without MYC rearrangement when induction chemotherapy was proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based, immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-based or PI + IMiD-based. Overall survival was shorter in patients with MYC rearrangement compared with patients without MYC rearrangement (5.3 vs. 8.0 years, P < 0.001). MYC rearrangement was associated with increased risk of death on multivariate analysis when high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS stage III, and ≥70 years of age were included (risk ratio: 1.5; P = 0.007). Conclusions: MYC rearrangement is associated with high disease burden and is an independent adverse prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Abstract A gain in chromosome 1q (+1q) is among the most common cytogenetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma (MM). It is unclear whether +1q is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of +1q on clinical characteristics, treatment response, and survival outcomes. We included 1376 Mayo Clinic patients diagnosed with MM from 2005 to 2018 who underwent fluorescence in situ hybridization testing at diagnosis with a panel including the +1q probe. A gain in 1q was found in 391 patients (28%) and was associated with anemia, hypercalcemia, high tumor burden, International Staging System (ISS) stage 3, high-risk (HR) translocations, and chromosome 13 abnormalities. There was no difference in overall response or deeper responses to proteasome inhibitor (PI)–, immunomodulatory drug (iMiD)–, or PI plus IMiD–based induction. Time to next treatment was shorter in patients with +1q compared with those without +1q (19.9 vs 27.7 months; P < .001). On univariate analysis, +1q was associated with increased risk of death (risk ratio [RR], 1.9; P < .001), and decreased OS was seen in all treatment groups. +1q was independently associated with decreased OS on multivariate analysis when other HR cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS stage 3, and age ≥70 years were included (RR, 1.5; P < .001). Gain of >1 copy of 1q was not associated with worse OS compared with gain of 1 copy (4.9 vs 4.3 years; P = .21). +1q was associated with high tumor burden, advanced disease stage, and HR translocations. It is independently associated with decreased OS, even in the setting of novel therapy and transplant.

AbstractResponse assessment in light chain (AL) amyloidosis is based on serum and urine monoclonal protein studies. Newly diagnosed patients (n = 373) who achieved very good partial response or complete response (CR) to first line therapy were assessed for the survival impact of each of the monoclonal protein studies. At end of therapy (EOT), negative serum/urine immunofixation (IFE) was achieved in 61% of patients, 72% achieved normal serum free light chain ratio (sFLCR), and the median involved free light chain (iFLC) and difference between involved to uninvolved light chain (dFLC) were 17 mg/L and 5 mg/L, respectively. Overall, 46% of patients achieved a CR at EOT. At EOT, iFLC ≤20 mg/L and dFLC ≤10 mg/L were additive in survival discrimination to negative serum/urine IFE and were independent predictors of overall survival. In contrast, normalization of sFLCR did not add survival discrimination to serum/urine IFE and was not independent predictor of survival. We propose a new definition for hematological CR to include serum/urine IFE negativity plus iFLC ≤20 mg/L or dFLC ≤10 mg/L, instead of the current definition of serum/urine IFE negativity and normal sFLCR. Complete response using dFLC ≤10 mg/L had the best performance in those with significant renal dysfunction and by light chain isotype, making it the preferred partner to IFE. Validation of these results in a multicenter cohort is warranted.