-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

361 Molecular Measurable Residual Disease Detection in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Using Error Corrected Next Generation Sequencing

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Type: Oral
Session: 803. Emerging Diagnostic Tools and Techniques I
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
AML, Diseases, Technology and Procedures, Myeloid Malignancies, genetic profiling, flow cytometry, NGS
Sunday, December 6, 2020: 10:00 AM

Nikhil Patkar, MD1*, Anam Fatima Shaikh2,3*, Chinmayee Kakirde1*, Rakhi Salve4*, Prasanna Bhanshe5*, Gaurav Chatterjee, MD1,2,6*, Sweta Rajpal7*, Swapnali Joshi8*, Shruti Chaudhary1*, Rohan Kodgule1*, Dhanlaxmi Lalit Shetty, PhD9,10*, Hasmukh Jain, MD9,11,12,13*, Bhausaheb Bagal, MD, DM14,15,16,17*, Hari Menon, MD11,18, Navin Khattry, MD, DM15,17,19,20*, Manju Sengar, MD, DM9,11,16,21,22, Prashant Tembhare, MD1,23*, Papagudi Ganesan Subramanian, MD1,24* and Sumeet Gujral, MD1*

1Hematopathology Laboratory, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
2ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre, Navi Mumbai, India
3Hematopathology Laboratory, Tata Memorial Centre, ACTREC, Navi Mumbai, India
4CCE-25, Sector 22, Utsav Chowk - CISF Rd, Owe Camp, Kharghar, Maharashtra, Hematopathology Laboratory, TATA Memorial Centre, ACTREC, Navi Mumbai, India
5Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, IND
6ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
7Hematopathology Laboratory, TATA Memorial Centre, ACTREC, Navi Mumbai, India
8Hematopathology Labortory, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
9Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
10Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology, ACTREC, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, IND
11Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
12Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, India
13Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Mumbai, India
14Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
15Homi Bhabha National Institute., Mumbai., India
16Adult hematolymphoid disease management group, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
17Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre., Navi Mumbai., India
18Cytecare cancer centre, Medical Oncology, Bengaluru, India
19BMT unit, Department of Medical oncology, ACTREC., Tata Memorial Centre, Navi Mumbai, India
20Homi Bhabha National University., Mumbai., India
21Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology,, Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, India
22Adult Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
23Adult & Pediatric Hematolymphoid Disease Management Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
24Hematopathology Laboratory, ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Introduction

The monitoring of a patient’s response to chemotherapy, called, measurable residual disease (MRD) is one of the most important predictors of outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Although universally applicable, FCM-MRD for AML suffers from low sensitivity as compared to precursor B lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Here, we evaluated the clinical utility of error corrected next generation sequencing (NGS) to detect MRD (NGS-MRD) in AML using single molecule molecular inversion probes (smMIPS). We compare NGS-MRD and FCM-MRD and determine their impact on patient outcome. We demonstrate that error corrected NGS-MRD at early timepoints in therapy is an independent and significant predictor of outcome in patients of AML treated with conventional therapies.

Methods

We created a 35 gene “hotspot” panel comprising of a pool of 302 smMIPS. In brief, this panel covers regions of 35 commonly mutated genes in AML.FLT3-ITD were detected using a novel one-step PCR based NGS assay. Post mapping, singleton reads (originating from one UMI) were discarded and consensus family based variant calling was performed. We then created a site and mutation specific error model to ascertain the relevance of an observed variant at each site. A limit of detection (LOD) experiment demonstrated a lower detection limit of 0.05%. For FLT3-ITD the LOD was 0.002%. A total of 393 adult patients of AMLwere accrued over a period of six years.Patients were treated with standard 3+7 induction followed by 3 doses of HiDAC. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation was offered where feasible. Somatic mutations at diagnosis were evaluated using a smMIPS based 50 gene myeloid panel which was applicable to 327 patients [83.2% of AMLs, median 2 mutations per case (range 1 – 6 trackable mutations)].MRD assessment could be performed in 201 adult patients of AML in morphological remission (not performed in the rest because of suboptimal quality DNA at MRD time points or missing sample).Samples were sequenced on multiple S4 flow cells of a NovaSeq 6000 using 150PE chemistry.FCM-MRD was obtained from the bone marrow at end of induction (PI, n=200) and end of first consolidation cycle (PC, n=98). NGS-MRD sample also obtained at the same time points (PI, n=196& PC, n=127) from the bone marrow (n=266) or peripheral blood (n=45).

Results

The interaction of mutations that were trackable at diagnosis can be seen in Figure 1A. A total of 345 mutations could be detected in 196 patients (Figure 1B) with a median VAF of 1.01% [0.82% after exclusion of mutations in DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1 (DTA) genes; (median of 2 mutations for PI and one for PC timepoint)]. The median consensus read coverage was 11,127 for the smMIPS assay, whereas for the FLT3-ITD assay it was 13,96,366.The median follow-up of the cohort was 42.3 months. The presence of NGS-MRD (70.9%) was associated with inferior overall survival (OS; p=0.001) [hazard ratio(HR)- 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI)- 1.47 to 3.43] and relapse free survival (RFS; p=0.0002) [HR- 2.28; 95% CI- 1.58 to 3.31] at PI time point as well as PC time points [40.94% positive; OS (p=0.008)(HR- 1.92; 95% CI- 1.14 to 3.22) and RFS (p=0.004)(HR- 1.90; 95% CI- 1.18 to 3.05)].Similarly, FCM-MRD (44%) was predictive of inferior OS (p=0.0002)(HR- 2.08; 95% CI- 1.38 to 3.13)and RFS (p=0.0008)(HR- 1.81; 95% CI- 1.26 to 2.60) at PI as well as PC time points [21.4% positive, OS (p=0.04)(HR- 1.87; 95% CI- 0.89 to 3.91) and RFS (p=0.001)(HR- 2.38; 95% CI- 1.17 to 4.81)].

On multivariate analysis post induction NGS MRD emerged as the most important independent prognostic factor predictive of inferior outcome for OS [HR- 1.94; 95% CI-1.15 to 3.27; (p<0.0001)]as well asRFS[HR-2.05; 95% CI-1.30 to 3.23; (p<0.0001)].On incorporating results combining both the MRD modalities,patients that were positive by both techniqueshad a significantly inferior outcome with respect to OS (p=0.0002; HR- 4.66; 95% CI- 2.71 to 8.0)and RFS (p=0.0001; HR- 4.03; 95% CI- 2.51 to 6.47) at PI timepoint as well as PC timepoint [OS (p=0.02; HR- 3.73; 95% CI- 1.07 to 12.97) and RFS (p=0.0015; HR- 4.17; 95% CI- 1.27 to 13.7)] as compared to patients negative by both modalities (Figure 1E,F)

Conclusion

In conclusion, we demonstrate that error corrected panel-based sequencing is feasible for MRD monitoring in AML and may offer an advantage over existing techniques. Maximum clinical utility may be leveraged by combining FCM and NGS modalities.

Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

*signifies non-member of ASH