Analysis of Serial Patient Samples Reveals a Variety of Clonal Dynamics In Multiple Myeloma

Abstract 1923

Our understanding of the genetic abnormalities associated with the development of multiple myeloma has increased significantly in the last decade. However, very little is known about how, or if, myeloma tumor genomes change with time and if therapeutic interventions influence these events. To address these issues we studied a cohort of 29 patients for whom at least two serial samples (1-65 months, median 19 months) were available for analysis. Each serial pair was analyzed by both array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and microarray gene expression profiling (GEP) to identify DNA copy number abnormalities (CNA) at a 25kb resolution and gene expression differences present in the bulk of the tumor mass. Though this does not address the intra-clonal heterogeneity that may exist at a given time point, it does answer if the bulk of the tumor mass is changing with time.

This study has unearthed several surprising and clinically relevant findings. First, myeloma tumor genomes are not as unstable as previous cytogenetic analyses suggest. In 40% of patients we observed no detectable CNA changes (1-37 months, median 12 months). In 24% of patients we observed the exclusive acquisition of new CNA (1-12, median 3.5) (3-22 months, median 18 months). In 36% of patients we observed both the loss (1-20, median 3) and gain (1-33, median 21) of CNA (5-43 months, median 20 months). Because time was not a significant influence on the detection of stable or unstable genomes we compared CNA changes with TC class and found patients with the high-risk 4p16 and maf IgH translocations were over-represented in the latter subset of patients. These observations raise the question of what happens between multiple rounds of therapy and if different regimens influence these phenotypes differently. For two patients with no CNA changes between the first two time points there was an additional sample that extended the follow-up by 52 and 12 months. Again no CNA changes were seen between diagnosis and these final samples taken 63 and 50 months later. For one patient with CNA changes (5 shared, 29 lost, and 32 gained) we have a detailed time course of 5 samples from diagnosis through to end-stage plasma cell leukemia. This patient received continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) for 20 months and progessed with a clone containing a BIRC2/3 deletion, which activates the NFKB pathway. The patient received single agent PR-171 and a bortezomib containing regimen and unexpectedly, the tumor genome observed in the third sample was almost identical (32 shared, 2 lost, and 4 gained CNA) to the first time point, including two copies of BIRC2/3. Subsequently, the patient received melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib (MPV) and the tumor genome observed in the fourth and fifth samples, which were identical, were similar to that seen in the second sample (24 shared, 13 lost, and 39 gained CNA). To understand these observations better we performed FISH to ascertain if the observed clones were detectable earlier, albeit at a low frequency. These experiments proved that the two dominant subclones observed at time points 1 and 3 versus 2, 4, 5 were mutually exclusive at the single cell level. Moreover, both of these clones were detectable at diagnosis with 12% of the tumor mass being the second subclone that eventually evolved into plasma cell leukemia. Interestingly, we assayed 5 of the 39 unique CNA observed in the final two samples and only one, the 17p13 deletion, was detectable earlier. This suggests the MPV regimen effectively eliminated a clone that was previously sensitive to Rd and selected for a dramatically evolved subclone that was previously sensitive to two different proteasome inhibitors.

Although it is clear that the high-risk patients are enriched in the subset with the most changes, it is not clear if the specific drugs used (Melphalan vs IMID vs proteasome inhibitor) or intervention strategy (Cycled vs continuous/maintenance) and perhaps the response achieved (PR vs CR) influences these events. These observations do highlight two important clinical concepts that need to be considered in the future. First, the meaning of a partial response needs further investigation as this may reflect effective elimination of one subclone but not another. Second, because some patients are not changing or can revert back to a previous subclone we need to consider re-chanllenging patients with previously effective regimens when patients progress.