Genomic Profiling to Contextualize the Results of Intervention for High-Risk Smoldering Myeloma
Kazandjian, D.; Diamond, B.; Papadimitriou, M.; Hill, E.; Sklavenitis-Pistofidis, R.; Ziccheddu, B.; Blaney, P.; Chojnacka, M.; Durante, M.; Maclachlan, K.; Young, R.; Usmani, S.; Davies, F.; Getz, G.; Ghobrial, I.; Korde, N.; Morgan, G.; Maura, F.; Landgren, O.
Show abstract
Early intervention for High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (HR-SMM) achieves deeper and more prolonged responses compared to Newly Diagnosed (ND) MM. It is unclear if beneficial outcomes of interventional studies in HR-SMM are due to treatment of less complex, susceptible disease or inaccuracy in clinical definition of cases entered. Here, to gain greater biologic insight into treatment outcomes, we performed the first whole genome sequencing analysis of treated HR-SMM for 27 patients treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and lenalidomide maintenance (NCT01572480). Genomic features were pooled with another contemporary HR-SMM interventional study (E-PRISM; NCT02279394) and compared to those of NDMM. We reveal that across interventional cohorts, the genomic landscape of HR-SMM is uniformly simple as compared to NDMM counterparts, with fewer inactivation events of tumor suppressor genes, fewer RAS pathway mutations, lower frequency of MYC disruption, and lower APOBEC contribution. The absence of these genomic events parallels that of indolent precursor conditions with low chance of progression, possibly explaining the overall superior outcomes across these trials. However, there remains a subgroup of patients harboring genomic complexity for whom early intervention with potent triplet therapy fails to sustain response and who experience resistant, progressive disease. Overall, these results suggest that clinical risk scores do not effectively discriminate between genomically indolent and aggressive disease. Furthermore, our study supports the use of genomics to contextualize the advantage of early intervention in SMM and to consider novel approaches for those with the most aggressive precursor states. Key PointsTreated clinical high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma is genomically heterogeneous but is mostly less complex than multiple myeloma counterparts. A small subgroup of high-risk genomic features is associated with disease progression despite early intervention with triplet therapy.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic Subtypes of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma are associated with Distinct Pathogenic Phenotypes and Clinical Outcomes 97%
- Copy number signatures predict chromothripsis and associate with poor clinical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma 97%
- Accelerated single cell seeding in relapsed multiple myeloma 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multiple Myeloma DREAM Challenge Reveals Epigenetic Regulator PHF19 As Marker of Aggressive Disease 96%
- Resistance to decitabine and 5-azacytidine emerges from adaptive responses of the pyrimidine metabolism network 93%
- Mapping AML heterogeneity – multi-cohort transcriptomic analysis identifies novel clusters and divergent ex-vivo drug responses 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Elucidating the heterogeneity of immunotherapy response and immune-related toxicities by longitudinal ctDNA and immune cell compartment tracking in lung cancer 93%
- Targeting BET Proteins downregulates miR-33a to promote synergy with PIM inhibitors in CMML 91%
- RNA splicing alterations induce a cellular stress response associated with poor prognosis in AML 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The innate sensor ZBP1-IRF3 axis regulates cell proliferation in multiple myeloma 94%
- Quantification of measurable residual disease using duplex sequencing in adults with acute myeloid leukemia 94%
- Genome-wide CRISPR Screens Identify Ferroptosis as a Novel Therapeutic Vulnerability in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.