Dai, Yun

Abstract1q gain (+1q) is the most common high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality (HRCA) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, its prognostic value remains unclear in the era of novel agents. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the impact of +1q on the outcomes of 934 patients newly diagnosed with MM. +1q was identified in 53.1% of patients and verified as an independent variate for inferior overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio, 1.400; 95% confidence interval, 1.097–1.787; p = .007). Concurrence of other HRCAs (particularly t(14;16) and del(17p)) further exacerbated the outcomes of patients with +1q, suggesting prognostic heterogeneity. Thus, a risk‐scoring algorithm based on four risk variates (t(14;16), hypercalcemia, ISS III, and high LDH) was developed to estimate the outcomes of patients with +1q. Of the patients, 376 evaluable patients with +1q were re‐stratified into low (31.6%), intermediate (61.7%), and high risk (6.7%) groups, with significantly different progression‐free survival and OS (p < .0001), in association with early relapse of the disease. The prognostic value of this model was validated in the CoMMpass cohort. While attaining undetectable MRD largely circumvented the adverse impact of +1q, it scarcely ameliorated the outcome of the patients with high risk, who likely represent a subset of patients with extremely poor survival. Hence, patients with +1q are a heterogeneous group of high‐risk patients, therefore underlining the necessity for their re‐stratification. The proposed simple risk‐scoring model can estimate the outcomes of patients with +1q, which may help guide risk‐adapted treatment for such patients.

Introduction: Interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) is a transcription factor involved in B cell activation and differentiation into plasma cells, as well as B-cell lineage neoplasia. Diverse genetic abnormalities and dysregulated expression of IRF4 have been documented in various hematologic malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM). IRF4 is also identified as a major downstream target of CRBN/IKZF to regulate MYC expression, representing a primary mechanism underlying anti-MM action of IMiDs. However, it remains unclear how the expression and function of IRF4 are regulated in MM cells. Materials and Methods: DNAseq, whole exome RNAseq (WES), and label-free analyses of quantitative proteomics and post-translational modifications (PTMs) mapping were conducted to examine genetic aberrations, transcriptional dysregulation, or protein and PTM alterations in primary patient samples and drug-naive vs -resistant cell lines. Flow cytometry, qPCR, and Western blot analysis were utilized to monitor apoptosis or mRNA and protein levels of target genes. Stable transfection with wild-type or mutated IRF4 was carried out to evaluate its function. Analysis of the MM genome-wide GEP databases (R2: Genomics Analysis and Visualization Platform) was performed to validate the clinical significance of IRF4 and its target genes in MM patients. Results: MM cells that acquired bortezomib (btz) resistance (PS-R) exhibited a marked increase in protein levels of multiple key components of the canonical and non-canonical NF-κB signaling cascades, in association with increased NF-κB transcriptional activity. Pharmacological inhibition of NF-κB using several compounds (e.g., Bay 11-7082, parthenolide, triptolide) significantly increased btz sensitivity in PS-R cells and their parental U266 cells, as well as other MM cell lines. These events were accompanied by down-regulation of various genes, including NF-κB-dependent genes and those whose relationship with NF-κB remains uncertain. The latter included IRF4, MYC, MCL1, BIRC2/cIAP1, SQSTM1/p62, among others. Of note, overexpression of wild-type IRF4 sharply reduced sensitivity of drug-naive cells to btz alone or in combination with NF-κB inhibitors. However, IRF4 overexpression did not prevent inactivation of NF-κB and down-regulation of the NF-κB-dependent genes (e.g., Bcl-xL, TNFAIP3/A20), suggesting that IRF4 acts downstream of NF-κB. Surprisingly, IRF4 overexpression failed to restore expression of MYC, a well-established target of IRF4, while largely reversed expression of cIAP1 and Mcl-1 at both mRNA and protein levels. Moreover, inhibitors of either IAP (birinapant/TL32711) or Mcl-1 (S63845) overcame btz-resistance conferred by IRF4 overexpression. DNAseq unveiled multiple IRF4 SNPs located in introns and exons (both 3'-UTR and coding region) of chromosome 6. WES revealed that IRF4 was highly expressed in primary bone marrow and extramedullary samples of MM patients (2~10 folds over normal donors). But no difference at mRNA and protein levels of IRF4 was observed between drug-naive and -resistant cell lines. The global PTM mapping identified two lysine residues (K59 and K399) that were highly ubiquitinated in PS-R cells (p = 0.0447 and p = 0.0004, vs U266 cells). Interestingly, ectopic expression of IRF4 mutants (e.g., K59N, K123R) lost the cytoprotective capability of their wild-type counterpart, in association with failure to reverse down-regulation of cIAP1 and Mcl-1. This observation argues that these point mutations are loss-of-function, which might explain better prognosis of patients carrying IRF4 mutations (including K59N and K123R) than wild-type IRF4 as reported previously. Last, the MM GEP database analysis validated the correlation between IRF4 and Mcl-1 or cIAP expression, as well as the adverse effect of their dysregulation on overall survival of MM patients. Conclusion: IRF4 is highly expressed in MM cells, likely via an NF-κB-dependent mechanism. IRF4 acts downstream of the NF-κB signaling pathways, which in turn directly targets cIAP1 and Mcl-1, rather than MYC, to confer drug resistance. IRF4 could be mutated in MM patients, while the point mutations, at least at certain lysine sites, seem to be loss-of-function and thus predict better outcome. Together, these findings suggest that the oncogenic function of IRF4 might be governed at genetic, transcriptional, and PTM levels in MM cells. Disclosures Kumar: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract A complex network precisely regulates the cell cycle through the G1, S, G2, and M phases and is the basis for cell division under physiological and pathological conditions. On the one hand, the transition from one phase to another as well as the progression within each phase is driven by the specific cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs; e.g., CDK1, CDK2, CDK4, CDK6, and CDK7), together with their exclusive partner cyclins (e.g., cyclin A1, B1, D1–3, and E1). On the other hand, these phases are negatively regulated by endogenous CDK inhibitors such as p16ink4a, p18ink4c, p19ink4d, p21cip1, and p27kip1. In addition, several checkpoints control the commitment of cells to replicate DNA and undergo mitosis, thereby avoiding the passage of genomic errors to daughter cells. CDKs are often constitutively activated in cancer, which is characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of transformed cells, due to genetic and epigenetic abnormalities in the genes involved in the cell cycle. Moreover, several oncogenes and defective tumor suppressors promote malignant changes by stimulating cell cycle entry and progression or disrupting DNA damage responses, including the cell cycle checkpoints, DNA repair mechanisms, and apoptosis. Thus, genes or proteins related to cell cycle regulation remain the main targets of interest in the treatment of various cancer types, including hematologic malignancies. In this context, advances in the understanding of the cell cycle regulatory machinery provide a basis for the development of novel therapeutic approaches. The present article summarizes the pathways as well as their genetic and epigenetic alterations that regulate the cell cycle; moreover, it discusses the various approved or potential therapeutic targets associated with the cell cycle, focusing on hematologic malignancies.

Introduction: Emerging evidence supports that cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) drive myelomagenesis and heterogeneity (e.g., clinical presentation, response to therapy, and prognosis) of multiple myeloma (MM). Diversity of CAs, including primary (IgH translocations and trisomies) and secondary CAs (copy number abnormalities) argues that MM is not a "single disease". Thus, identification of CAs at diagnosis is essential for risk stratification, guiding treatment, and prognostic estimation in daily practice. However, although frequency, configuration, and significance of CAs have been well documented in the Western countries, this information is lacking in the Asian population. To this end, a multi-center retrospective analysis was carried out to examine epidemiology and prognostic significance of CAs alone or in combination in a cohort of Chinese patients with newly-diagnosed MM (NDMM). Materials and Methods: A total of 1015 NDMM patients who had the baseline information of CAs detected by FISH at four institutes nationwide were included. According to the IMWG consensus updated in 2016, 1q gain, del(17p), t[4;14], and t[14;16] were defined as high-risk CAs (HRCAs), while another HRCA t[14;20] was not tested routinely in a majority of these patients. In addition, del(1p) and del(13q14) were considered as an adverse CA. According to the mSMART3.0 proposed by Mayo Clinic in 2018, double-hit (DHMM) and triple-hit MM (THMM) were defined as co-occurrence of 2 or >= 3 HRCAs, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In this cohort, the median age of 1015 patients was 61 years; 63.5% were male. The type of IgG, light chain, IgA, IgD, non/oligosecretory, IgM, or IgE accounted for 42.9%, 26.2%, 24.5%, 3.4%, 2.5%, 0.4%, and 0.1%, respectively. Del(13q) (46.4%) and 1q gain (46.1%; 3 copies = 73.8%, >= 4 copies = 26.2%) represented the most common CAs, followed by t(4;14) (14.0%), t(11;14) (11.8%), del(1p) (11.5%), del(17p) (9.9%; 20-50% cells = 35.6%, > 50% cells = 64.4%), and t(14;16) (5.1%). While none of these CAs was detected in 23.8% of cases, the frequency of patients who carried 1 - 5 CAs was 31.9%, 28.0%, 13.4%, 2.0%, and 0.9%, respectively. In the 1q+ cases, 36.4% patients carried second CA(s), including del(13q) (61.1%), t(4;14) (20.3%), del(1p) (14.8%), del(17p) (10.7%), t(11;14) (10.4%), and t(14;16) (8.1%). In the del(17p) cases, 57.5% patients had additional CA(s), including del(13q) (75.2%), 1q gain (49.5%), del(1p) (21.6%), t(4;14) (19.6%), t(14;16) (8.7%), and t(11;14) (2.2%). In the cases bearing IgH translocations, 26.0% patients also carried other CA(s), including del(13q) and 1q gain (61.9% for each), and del(17p) (9.3%). In the cases harboring HRCAs, the percentage of patients who carried 1 - 4 HRCAs was 70.2%, 24.8%, 3.7%, and 1.1%, respectively. Overall, 14.3% and 2.9% patients had DHMM or THMM, of whom 65.0%, 18.0%, 12.0%, and 5.0% had 2 - 5 HRCAs, respectively. While there was no significant difference in PFS between the cases carrying 1 and 2 CAs (P = 0.209), the patients who had 3 or more CAs displayed a sharp reduction in median PFS (P = 0.022 and P = 0.003 for 3 vs 1 or 2 CAs). Although multiple CAs was associated with shorter median OS, no statistical significance was observed for each comparison (P > 0.05). However, patients who carried >= 2 HRCAs had significantly shorter median PFS (12.1 months; P = 0.0004) and OS (29.3 months; P = 0.027) than those who had one single HRCA (32.2 and 65.6 months for median PFS and OS). Conclusion: In comparison with the Western countries, the incidence of secondary HRCAs (e.g., 1q gain and del(17p)) is relatively higher in Chinese patients at diagnosis, while the standard-risk CA such as t(11;14) is clearly less frequent. The proportion of Chinese patients who carry multiple CAs (up to 5) or HRCAs appear to be greater as well. In this context, patients carrying two or more HRCAs, so called DHMM or THMM, exhibit significantly worse outcome than those carrying only one HRCA. Together, this study builds up an up-to-date profile of CAs for Chinese patients, which might lay a foundation for revising the criteria for risk stratification and the guideline for treatment that is more feasible and practicable in China. It also provides the information about frequency and configuration of MM-driven CAs, which might be more relevant to the Asian population. Disclosures Kumar: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Histone lysine methylation, a reversible event dynamically and reciprocally regulated by lysine methyltransferases (KMTs) and demethylases (KDMs), represents one of the major epigenetic mechanisms for regulation of chromatin remodeling and gene expression re-programming. The KDM4 family, which belongs to the Jumonji C (JmjC)-domain-containing proteins (JMJDs), consists of five members, including KDM4A-E that demethylate H3K9me2/3 and/or H3K36me2/3 in a Fe2+- and α-ketoglutarate-dependent manner. KDM4 proteins are involved in various cellular processes such as gene transcription and translation, DNA replication, DNA repair, apoptosis, and stem cell renewal. Notably, increasing evidence implicates KDM4 dysregulation in promoting genomic instabilities and oncogenesis, thereby which is considered as a potential target for emerging cancer epigenetic therapy. Although KDM4A, a member of the KDM4 family, has been widely studied in many solid tumors including breast, prostate, bladder cancer, its role in hematopoietic malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM), remains unknown. Materials and Methods: Human MM cell lines (U266, RPMI8226, H929, OPM-2) were employed. After exposed to hypoxia (or the chemical hypoxia mimetic lactic acid) and anti-MM agents (e.g., bortezomib/Btz), cells were analyzed by flow cytometry, qPCR, Western blot to monitor apoptosis, cell cycle, proliferation (Ki67), DNA double-strand break/DSB (γH2A.X), expression of 1q21 and anti-apoptotic genes, as well as activation of the NF-κB and HIF pathways. The shRNA approach was used to knock down KDM4A for functional evaluation. The findings from in vitro experiments involving cell lines were then validated in primary MM samples to link KDM4A expression to disease progression and therapeutic response. Results: Analysis of the MM genome-wide GEP databases revealed that KDM4A mRNA was significantly up-regulated in MGUS and MM, but not SMM, compared to normal control, as well as in relapsed MM, compared to newly-diagnosed MM. To our surprise, KDM4A expression rather favored overall survival of MM patients, including those carrying 1q21 gain in whom KDM4A expression was indeed lower than those who did not have this high risk cytogenetic abnormality. Moreover, KDM4A expression correlated adversely with expression of 1q21 genes (e.g., CKS1B, MCL1, PSMD4, ARNT). Whereas basal KDM4A protein level was moderately but clearly higher in MM cell lines carrying 1q21 gain or acquired drug resistance than their counterparts, exposure to hypoxia or lactic acid (but not cobalt chloride) resulted in marked KDM4A up-regulation, accompanied by NF-κB and HIF pathway activation. However, while NF-κB inhibition and to a lesser extent ARNT/HIF-1β knockdown led to a robust increase in hypoxia-induced KDM4A expression, shRNA knockdown or pharmacological inhibition of KDM4A triggered NF-κB activation and HIF expression, as well as up-regulated anti-apoptotic proteins (e.g., Mcl-1, TNFAIP3/A20, CKS1B), in association with increased H3K36me3 rather than H3K9me3. Furthermore, KDM4A knockdown or inhibition sharply diminished Btz lethality and overrode hypoxia-mediated cytoprotection. Interestingly, KDM4A knockdown also increased MM cell proliferation, promoted S phase entry, and attenuated Btz-induced DSB. Last, IHC of sequential bone marrow biopsies revealed that while KDM4A protein was relatively low at diagnosis, its level was markedly increased when patients achieved CR and then fell to the baseline low level at relapse. Conclusion: KDM4A/JMJD2A, a lysine demethylase that has been recognized as an pro-oncogenic protein via its epigenetic and/or non-epigenetic properties, is identified for the first time as a potential tumor suppressor in MM, particularly in a high risk subtype carrying 1q21 gain. Whereas KDM4A is expressed in MM and can be further induced by hypoxia that naturally exists in bone marrow niche, it seems to play multiple inhibitory roles in cell growth, cell cycle, DNA repair, and drug resistance by suppressing expression of oncogenic and anti-apoptotic genes (especially 1q21 genes), likely via H3K36me3 demethylation, and antagonizing NF-κB and HIF activation. These findings suggest that in contrast to its pro-oncogenic role in certain solid tumors, KDM4A might instead act as a tumor suppressor in MM. This work was supported by NNSFC (81471165, 81670189, and 81670190). Disclosures Kumar: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.