ALBERT

Description: Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a genetically and clinically heterogeneous disease. The cell-of-origin (COO) classification subdivides DLBCL into the transcriptionally defined activated B-cell (ABC) and germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtypes. Recently, 2 novel classifiers based on genetic features were independently proposed further unraveling the diversity of DLBCL [Schmitz et al, NEJM2018; Chapuy et al, Nat Med2018]. The concordance between the 2 novel classification systems has not yet been systematically studied. However, both classifiers are largely complementary to COO subtypes, and describe overlapping genotypes. We previously demonstrated the feasibility of COO classification by noninvasive plasma genotyping in a limited gene panel using Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq) [Scherer et al, STM2016], and this approach has now been replicated by others. In this study, we take first steps toward a comprehensive non-invasive classification of novel DLBCL genetic subtypes using a limited gene panel. Methods We analyzed genetic profiling of 476 DLBCL patients reported by Schmitz et al (NEJM 2018) as a training set to build 2 classifiers in a limited gene panel applicable to plasma genotyping from CAPP-Seq: (1) A COO classifier (i.e. ABC, GCB and Unclassified); (2) A comprehensive genetic classifier (i.e. EZB, BN2, MCD, N1 and Other as defined in Schmitz et al, NEJM 2018). Features were limited to genetic alterations captured by our plasma genotyping panel, and those with population frequency of at least 10% in at least one genetic subtype. Our final model comprised 100 features: 64 recurrently mutated genes, 26 amplifications, 7 deletions and 3 translocations (BCL2, BCL6 and MYC). After cross-validation in the training set, we applied the 2 classifiers to the dataset from Chapuy et al (Nat Med 2018) as well as pretreatment plasma genotyping data from patients previously reported by our group [Kurtz et al, JCO 2018]. Results We first evaluated our 2 classifiers in a 10-fold cross-validation (CV) framework in the NEJM 2018 dataset of Schmitz et al. Despite modest performance of our GCB/ABC classification, COO labels had the expected significant prognostic associations (Fig. 1A). Overall accuracy of our second classifier to determine novel genetic subtypes was 82% (Fig. 1B). Consistent with the original study, inferred MCD and N1 subtypes had adverse prognosis compared to EZB and BN2 (Fig. 1C). We next applied our classifiers to the Chapuy et al (Nat Med 2018) dataset. Again, consistent with findings by Schmitz et al (NEJM 2018), the EZB subset of GCB cases had inferior outcome compared to non-EZB cases (Fig. 1D). We next examined the cross-correlation between the two classifiers and observed the expected enrichment patterns of ABCs in the MCD subset and enrichment of GCBs in the EZB subset (Fig. 1E). Finally, we applied our classifiers to plasma genotyping data previously reported by our group [Kurtz et al., JCO 2018]. We restricted the analysis to cases with a mean variant allele fraction ≥0.5% (n=68). Similar to the original study, 59% of cases (40/68) were labeled unclassifiable (i.e. Other). We compared the distribution of COO subtypes within the Schmitz genetic clusters. Representation of ABC and GCB within the clusters inferred from Plasma genotyping (Fig. 1F) was similar to the distribution from Tumor genotyping (Fig. 1E). Conclusions We describe 2 new classifiers applicable to noninvasive plasma genotyping data that recapitulate transcriptionally and genetically defined DLBCL subtypes. Using independent datasets, we show the feasibility of classification with a limited feature set with good prediction accuracy and prognostic stratification of defined subtypes. Genotyping of pretreatment plasma samples suggest that comprehensive non-invasive classification of genetic subtypes of DLBCL is achievable. Disclosures Kurtz: Roche: Consultancy. Diehn:BioNTech: Consultancy; Quanticell: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Alizadeh:Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Description: Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) exhibits significant clinical and biological heterogeneity, in part due to cell-of-origin subtypes, somatic alterations, and diverse stromal constituents within the tumor microenvironment (TME). Several immunologically-active lymphoma therapies are known to rely on innate and adaptive anti-tumor responses occurring within this dynamic TME, including agents that are approved (e.g., rituximab, lenalidomide, CART19, ibrutinib) or emerging (e.g., anti-CD47, checkpoint inhibitors). We hypothesized that a large-scale characterization of the cellular heterogeneity in DLBCL might reveal previously unknown biological variation in the TME linked to tumor subtypes and genotypes, therapeutic responses and clinical outcomes, with implications for future personalization of immunotherapy. Methods: Using a combination of lymphoma single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and bulk tumor transcriptome deconvolution (CIBERSORTx; Newman et al., Nat Biotech, 2019), we developed a new machine learning framework for identifying cellular states and ecosystems that reflect fundamental TME subtypes and distinctions in tumor biology (Fig. 1). Specifically, using CIBERSORTx, we purified the transcriptomes of B cells and 12 different TME cell types, including immune and stromal subsets, from 1,279 DLBCL tumor biopsies profiled in 3 prior studies (Reddy et al., Cell 2017; Schmitz et al., NEJM 2018; Chapuy et al., Nat Med 2018). Then, we defined distinct transcriptional states for each of the 13 cell types, which we validated at single-cell resolution, using a combination of two scRNA-seq techniques (Smart-Seq2 and 10x Chromium 5' GEP, BCR and TCR) to profile primary DLBCL, FL, and human tonsils, as well as leveraging multiple scRNA-seq datasets from previous studies. We identified robust co-associations between cell states that form tumor cellular ecosystems, which we validated in independent datasets of bulk DLBCL tumor gene expression profiles. Finally, we related TME ecosystems to defined tumor subtypes, including genotype classes, and to clinical outcomes. Results: By systematically characterizing the landscape of cellular heterogeneity in nearly 1,300 DLBCL tumors, we defined an atlas of 49 distinct transcriptional states across 13 major cell types. These novel cell states spanned diverse innate and adaptive immune effector cells of the lymphoid and myeloid lineages, as well as tumor-associated fibroblasts. Remarkably, 94% of these states (46 of 49) could be validated in a compendium of ~200,000 single-cell transcriptomes derived from lymphomas, healthy control tonsils, and other tissue types. Moreover, single cells from DLBCL, FL and tonsils best mirrored these newly discovered cell states. We next characterized the biology and potential clinical utility of each cell state. We observed clear distinctions in the transcriptional programs of immune and stromal elements between germinal center and activated B cell DLBCL, as well as between known mutational subtypes. Importantly, many cell states reflected novel phenotypic groupings, and the majority were significantly associated with overall survival (P

Description: Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR19) T-cells have significant activity in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL (rrDLBCL). While the majority of rrDLBCL patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel)achieve complete responses, a significant subset of patients experience disease progression (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has demonstrated utility for predicting therapeutic benefit in DLBCL, as well as for detecting emergent resistance mechanisms to targeted therapies. Here we apply cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis to patients receiving Axi-cel, to characterize molecular responses, resistance mechanisms, and to track CAR19 cells. Methods: We performed Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq) on DNA from germline and plasma samples collected prior to CAR T-cell infusion, multiple time-points post infusion, and, where available, at the time of relapse from 30 patients receiving Axi-cel for rrDLBCL at Stanford University. We designed a novel hybrid-capture panel and analysis pipeline designed to detect both tumor variants, as well as Axi-cel specific recombinant retroviral sequences to quantify CAR19 levels in cfDNA. Tumor variants were identified prior to and following Axi-cel therapy to assess for emergent variants, and Axi-cel specific sequences were quantified. Results: The median follow-up for the 30 patients after Axi-cel infusion was 10 months, with 47% (14/30) of patients experiencing disease progression after Axi-cel therapy. We identified an average of 164.3 SNVs per case (range:1-685) before Axi-cel therapy; the most common coding variants identified at baseline were in MLL2 (29.2%), BCL2 (22.5%), and TP53 (19.3%). When treated as a continuous variable, pretreatment ctDNA levels were prognostic of PFS (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.11-4.21, P=0.02). Using a previously established ctDNA threshold to stratify disease burden (2.5 log10(hGE/mL); Kurtz et al. JCO 2018), we observed significantly superior PFS in patients with low pretreatment ctDNA levels treated with Axi-cel (Fig. 1A). In the majority of Axi-cel treated patients (62.9%), ctDNA was detectable at day 28, and PFS was significantly longer in patients with undetectable ctDNA at this time-point (Fig. 1B). Multiple putative resistance mechanisms were identified at relapse after Axi-cel, including emergent variants in CD19, HVEM, and TP53, as well as copy number gains in PD-L1 (Fig. 1C). For example, in one patient, a CD19 stop-gain mutation, which was not detected prior to treatment or at the time of the first interim PET scan, emerged at the time of relapse (Fig. 1D). Finally, we found cfDNA evidence for Axi-cel DNA in 74% of patients 28 days after therapy, including in patients without evidence of circulating CAR T-cells in PBMCs. Axi-cel levels in cfDNA as measured by CAPP-Seq were significantly correlated with CAR19 flow cytometry (Pearson r=0.55, P=.015; Fig. 1E). Conclusions: Baseline and interim ctDNA measurements have prognostic significance in DLBCL patients being treated with CAR19 T-cells, and potential emergent resistance mutations, including in CD19, can be identified in patients via cfDNA analysis. Quantification of CAR19 T-cells using cfDNA is significantly correlated with flow cytometric quantification, indicating that these cells can be quantified via cfDNA. Taken together, these data indicate that cfDNA analysis is a powerful tool for predicting response to CAR19 therapy, identifying genomic determinants of resistance and quantifying CAR19 cells, which may in turn inform the next therapeutic steps. Figure 1: A) Kaplan Meier analysis of PFS, with patients stratified based on pre-Axi-cel therapy ctDNA level, above and below a previously established threshold (2.5 log10[haploid Genome Equivalents/mL]). B) A Kaplan Meier plot depicting PFS stratification for patients with detectable versus undetectable ctDNA at day 28 after Axi-cel infusion. C) Oncoprint depicting selected emergent and baseline tumor variants in progressors and non-progressors after Axi-cel therapy. D) Change in mean ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF) and emergence of a CD19 stop-gain mutation (CD19 pTrpX) at the time of relapse in a patient who initially achieved a CR at day 28 after CAR19 infusion. E) Relationship between CAR19 T-cell quantification by cfDNA and flow cytometry. (ND: Not detected) Disclosures Kurtz: Roche: Consultancy. Chabon:Lexent Bio Inc: Consultancy. Khodadoust:Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Majzner:Xyphos Inc.: Consultancy; Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy. Mackall:Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diehn:Roche: Consultancy; Quanticell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BioNTech: Consultancy. Miklos:Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alizadeh:Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Description: BACKGROUND Selection biases can impair the generalizability of clinical trials. Studies investigating aggressive diseases such as Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) can be particularly affected by such biases since clinical urgency and need for therapy may not allow the requisite extensive screening and consent processes for trials. Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval (DTI) has recently been proposed as a novel metric to capture this phenomenon (Maurer et al, JCO, 2018), and short DTI is associated with both adverse clinical factors and adverse clinical outcomes. Intriguingly, DTI was independent of clinical risk factors like the International Prognostic Index (IPI) suggesting that widely applied prognostic scores do not adequately reflect risk factors considered for clinical decision making. In this study, we aim to assess whether pretreatment levels of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are associated with shorter DTI and may constitute an objective measure of clinical urgency. METHODS We quantified pretreatment ctDNA levels in plasma samples from 178 patients treated in 5 US and European centers for large cell lymphoma (DLBCL, Follicular lymphoma grade 3b, or High-grade-B-cell-lymphoma) using Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq) as previously described (Kurtz, JCO 2018; Scherer, STM 2016). Pretreatment ctDNA levels were correlated with DTI, clinical factors and treatment outcome. RESULTS Pretreatment ctDNA was detectable in 175/178 cases. Median number of single nucleotide variants (SNV) detected per patient was 129 (range 0-628). Pretreatment ctDNA levels ranged from 0 - 1.4 x105 haploid genome equivalents per milliliter of plasma (hGE/ml, median 239). Median DTI was 19 days (range 0-141, Figure 1A) and was similar in distribution to 2 previously described cohorts from the US and Europe (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Shorter DTI was associated with higher ctDNA levels (RS=-0.39, P= 1.4 x10-7, Figure 1B). Patients with longer DTI had improved Event-Free Survival (EFS, Hazard Ratio (HR) for DTI: 0.9/week, P= 0.03). However, this association was lost when adjusting for pretreatment ctDNA levels (HR for DTI: 0.95/week, P= 0.39; HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.7, P= 5.8 x10-5). In a multivariate analysis including DTI, ctDNA and IPI, only ctDNA levels were significantly associated with EFS (HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.6, P= 0.002, n=178, Figure 1C). Pretreatment ctDNA levels remained the only prognostic factor for EFS in a second multivariate analysis also considering pretreatment metabolic tumor volume (MTV, HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.8, P= 0.01, n=93, Figure 1D). DISCUSSION Shorter DTI is associated with higher pretreatment ctDNA levels in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas. When comparing to established factors (DTI, IPI, MTV), pretreatment ctDNA levels appear to best predict clinical outcomes. This suggests that quantification of ctDNA better reflects disease burden and treatment urgency than existing clinical biomarkers. Pretreatment ctDNA level may therefore be a valuable metric for disease aggressiveness of patients included in clinical trials, and may help identify studies suffering from selection bias. This may be particularly useful for noncontrolled Phase I/II single arm trials, but also for stratification in randomized trials. Disclosures Kurtz: Roche: Consultancy. Dührsen:Alexion: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; CPT: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hüttmann:Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; University Hospital Essen: Employment. Westin:Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi:Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Diehn:Novartis: Consultancy; BioNTech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Quanticell: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Alizadeh:Pfizer: Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy.