Despite attempts to improve the definitions of ambiguous lineage leukemia (ALAL) during the last 2 decades, general therapy recommendations are missing. Herein, we report a large cohort of children with ALAL and propose a treatment strategy. A retrospective multinational study (International Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster Study of Leukemias of Ambiguous Lineage [iBFM-AMBI2012]) of 233 cases of pediatric ALAL patients is presented. Survival statistics were used to compare the prognosis of subsets and types of treatment. Five-year event-free survival (EFS) of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)-type primary therapy (80% ± 4%) was superior to that of children who received acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-type or combined-type treatment (36% ± 7.2% and 50% ± 12%, respectively). When ALL- or AML-specific gene fusions were excluded, 5-year EFS of CD19 leukemia was 83% ± 5.3% on ALL-type primary treatment compared with 0% ± 0% and 28% ± 14% on AML-type and combined-type primary treatment, respectively. Superiority of ALL-type treatment was documented in single-population mixed phenotype ALAL (using World Health Organization and/or European Group for Immunophenotyping of Leukemia definitions) and bilineal ALAL. Treatment with ALL-type protocols is recommended for the majority of pediatric patients with ALAL, including cases with CD19 ALAL. AML-type treatment is preferred in a minority of ALAL cases with CD19 and no other lymphoid features. No overall benefit of transplantation was documented, and it could be introduced in some patients with a poor response to treatment. As no clear indicator was found for a change in treatment type, this is to be considered only in cases with ≥5% blasts after remission induction. The results provide a basis for a prospective trial.

Recently, we described B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) subtype with an early switch to the monocytic lineage and the loss of the B-cell immunophenotype, including CD19 expression. Thus far, the genetic background has remained unknown. Among 726 children consecutively diagnosed with BCP-ALL, 8% patients experienced a switch detectable by flow cytometry (FC). Using exome and RNA sequencing, the switch was found to positively correlate with three different genetic subtypes: PAX5 -P80R mutation (five cases with switch of five), rearranged ( DUX4r ) (30 cases of 41) and rearranged ( ZNF384r ) (four cases of ten). Expression profiles or phenotypic patterns correlated with genotypes, but within each genotype no cases who subsequently switched could be indentified. If switching was not taken into account, the B-cell-oriented FC assessment underestimated the minimal residual disease level. For patients with P AX5- P80R, a discordance between FC-determined and polymerase chain reactiondetermined minimal residual disease was found on day 15, resulting from a rapid loss of the B-cell phenotype. Discordance on day 33 was observed in all the DUX4r , PAX5 -P80R and ZNF384r subtypes. Importantly, despite the substantial phenotypic changes, possibly even challenging the appropriateness of BCP-ALL therapy, the monocytic switch was not associated with a higher incidence of relapse and poorer prognosis in patients undergoing standard ALL treatment.

Introduction: Recently we described a subgroup of pediatric patients with B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP ALL) with switching from B to monocytic lineage in early phase of the therapy (Slamova et al., 2014). In a limited cohort of patients with switching ALL (swALL), we observed inferior response to treatment with discrepancy of minimal residual disease level (MRD) assessed by flow cytometry (FC) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of Immunoglobulin-T cell receptor (Ig-TCR) rearrangements. In current Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) treatment protocols, FC MRD value at day 15 (d15) and PCR MRD value at day 33 (d33) and week 12 (w12) are used for stratification. Using an extended cohort of patients with available RNA sequencing data (cohort mainly focused on B other cases or swALLs) we aimed to answer following questions:What is the genetic background of swALL? What is the frequency among swALLs of the recently described DUX4 rearranged subgroup?How do B cell oriented FC and PCR MRD correlate in standard protocol timepoints, i.e. day 8 (d8) (peripheral blood, PB) d15, d33 and w12 (bone marrow, BM) of treatment?What is the characteristic MRD response to treatment in swALL? Results:We performed RNA sequencing in 177 patients (median age 6.1 years, range 0-18) treated by several treatment protocols (ALL BFM 95 n=5, ALL IC BFM 2002 n=14, ALL AIEOP BFM 2000 n=17, ALL AIEOP BFM 2009 n=135, Interfant n=3, ALL IC/Interfant n=2, EsPhALL n=1). In 68 patients we observed switching phenomenon by appearance of B/monocytoid population coexpressing B lineage (CD19, CD34) and monocytic lineage (CD33, CD14) markers (median 0.98%, range 0.032-38%). In non swALLs median of this population was 0.059% (range 0.0025-1.1%) and the cells did not form a clear cluster. According to RNAseq data, majority of swALL patients (n=42/68) belong to DUX4 subgroup (chi square p< 0.00001). The distribution into other molecular genetic subtypes is summarized in table 1.Correlation coefficient (Spearman) of all included samples with both available values (n=552) was 0.82 (p<0.0001), Concordance in categorization of positivity and negativity with cut-off 1e-4 was 85%. We observed worse correlation between FC and PCR MRD in patients with swALL (d8 R=0.58, d15 R=0.6, d33 R=0.36, w12 n.s.) compared to non swALL (d8 R=0.83, d15 R=0.91, d33 R=0.69, w12 R=0.37). However, concordance in swALL in categorization of positivity and negativity with cut-off 1e-4 was still ≥80% in each analyzed timepoint apart from d33 with concordance only 44% showing significant discrepancy of both methods (Figure 1a). On the contrary, concordance in non swALL was ≥87% for each analyzed timepoint (d33 with concordance 87% shown in Figure 1b). Poor correlation between B-cell oriented FC MRD and PCR MRD at d33 was also obvious when analyzed DUX4 subgroup separately (R=0.31 (p=0.04), concordance 45%).We observed significantly higher MRD in swALLs compared to non swALLs at all analyzed timepoints: d8 (p=0.0021), d15 (p=0.0088, d33 (p<0.0001) and w12 (p=0.008). Higher MRD levels were also found in DUX4 patients when compared to non DUX4 (all timepoints p<0.05). Interestingly, when compared swALL and non swALLs pts in DUX4 subgroup only, the DUX4 swALLs are those with poorer treatment response (all timepoints p<0.05). With respect to protocolar cut-off values, FC MRD at d15 was above 10% in 18/67 swALL patients (in 13/52 DUX4 patients), d33 PCR MRD was above 0.1% in 33/57 swALLs (24/44 DUX4 pts) and at w12 PCR MRD was above 0.01% in 12/55 swALLs (10/44 DUX4 pts). Conclusions: DUX4 subgroup is the most prevalent genetic subtype among swALLs. SwALLs and/or DUX4 subgroup have poorer treatment response at d15, d33 and w12. However, it remains to be elucidated whether poor initial treatment response is eventually reflected in treatment outcome. In majority of swALL patients B cell phenotype of blasts is preserved at day 15 enabling correct classification. Prominent discrepancy between FC and PCR MRD is present especially at d33 and development of different FC MRD strategies focused on monocytic compartment is needed. Supported by Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, grant nr. 15-28525A and NV18-03-00343; Czech Science Foundation nr. P302/12/G101, UNCE204012 Disclosures Brüggemann: Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; PRMA: Consultancy. Ritgen:abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Daratumumab, an anti-CD38 antibody, is used experimentally in the treatment of relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We treated five patients suffering from relapsed ALL with daratumumab. Four patients had T ALL, three of whom achieved complete remission (CR) after treatment and underwent stem cell transplant (SCT).Two of them had a second relapse and died 6 and 8 months after SCT, respectively. One transplanted T ALL patient remained in CR2 15 months after relapse. In the remaining T-ALL patient, the disease progressed under daratumumab treatment, and the patient died early after the first relapse. The B-cell precursor ALL patient with a second CD19-negative relapse, whose disease turned out to be resistant to the combination of daratumumab with chemotherapy, later achieved CR3 with inotuzumab ozogamicin, underwent SCT and remained in CR3. Leukemia burden should be monitored after daratumumab, and care should be taken not to misclassify leukemic cells with false negativity of surface CD38; using an antibody reacting with nondaratumumab epitopes is advantageous.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract