Genomics define neoplastic transformation in multiple myeloma precursor conditions

Abstract

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is always preceded by monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). While these precursor conditions are asymptomatic, they are not entirely benign and carry a lifelong risk of progression to MM. Unlike other cancers defined by pathology, malignant transformation from MGUS or SMM to MM has so far relied on demonstration of clinical end-organ damage or high tumor cell burden (i.e. SLiM criteria, SV Rajkumar Lancet Onc 2014), as morphology and cytogenetics cannot reliably distinguish them. Methods: To identify genomic features underlying clinical behavior in MGUS and SMM, a total of 374 patients with SMM (n= 290) or MGUS (n=84) with available whole exome (whole exome sequencing, WES, n=190) or whole genome sequencing (whole genome sequencing WGS, n=184) were included in the study. Overall, none of the patients had evidence of SLiM or CRAB criteria at the time of the biopsy. Based on the center of origin and availability of WES and WGS, 227 and 97 patients were used to form our study training and validation set. The study was designed in two parts: 1) defining a new classification for MM precursor conditions; 2) integrating genomics to existing prognostic score to improve accuracy in identifying patients at imminent risk of progression. Overall, 68 patients in the training set were either lost to follow-up or enrolled in a clinical trial and they were only included in the classification part of the study. Results: By leveraging the distribution of established MM-defining genomic events (Maura et al. JCO 2024) in the training set, we developed a workflow that differentiates MGUS and SMM into two genomically distinct entities: one with evidence of neoplastic transformation (i.e., genomic MM) and one without (i.e., genomic MGUS). Overall, 39% of MGUS and 91% of SMM cases had genomic evidence of neoplastic transformation in the training set (i.e., genomic MM). When we applied the same workflow and classification to the validation set, 46% and 83% of MGUS and SMM had evidence of neoplastic transformation, respectively. Importantly, none of the patients classified as genomic-MGUS progressed to MM in either the training or validation cohorts, with a median follow-up of 40 and 61 months, respectively. Moreover, all patients with IMWG 2/20/20 high risk SMM were classified as genomic MM in both the training and validation set. Interestingly, 5 out of 62 (8%) patients enrolled in early intervention trials for high risk SMM were genomically classified as genomic-MGUS. Overall, these data demonstrated that the MM genomic background and neoplastic transformation can be acquired very early in time, even before the SMM phase, in line with what observed in solid tumors. To avoid overestimating the prognostic impact of myeloma-defining genomic events—which are, by definition, enriched in the genomic-MM group compared to genomic-MGUS—we restricted our prognostic analysis to patients in whom transformation has already occurred (genomic-MM). In fact, distinct genomic drivers may predict malignant transformation but not necessarily the risk of imminent progression to MM once transformation has occurred. After running 5-fold cross validations corrected for IMWG 2/20/20, only presence of RAS mutations, genomic events involving MYC, presence of neoplastic copy number variant (CNV) signatures and APOBEC mutagenesis were predictive of early progression in the training set. Adding the presence of high-risk myeloma-defining genomic events to the IMWG 2/20/20 model (i.e., genomic-IMWG) significantly improves the accuracy of predicting MM progression in both the training (c-index 0.69 vs. 0.74) and validation sets (c-index 0.74 vs. 0.79), compared to the IMWG 2/20/20 alone. Conclusion: By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling integrated with the clinical IMWG 2/20/20 risk score, we propose a novel classification and prognostication system for MM precursor conditions, which will better define patients who may benefit from early therapeutic intervention versus watch-and-wait monitoring.