Targeted deep sequencing of myeloma in a multi-institutional clinical workflow

P Parth Shah A Andrew Yee (1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, United States) M Mehmet Samur (2Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston) A Adam Sperling (1Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Boston, United States) V Vikas Gupta B Benjamin Barwick (1Emory University, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Atlanta, United States) J Jeremiah Karrs (2Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lebanon, United States) R Rutu Vyas (3Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States) W Wahab Khan L Liam Donnelly (2Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lebanon, United States) K Kacthary Sanclemente (1Massachusetts General Hospital, Cancer Center, Boston, United States) D Diana Cirstea (3Hematology and Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) P Prabhjot Kaur S Sadhanshu Shukla (5NCGM, Apex, United States) Y Yuxin Liu A Ajay Nooka (4Emory University, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, United States) N Nisha Joseph (1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States) J Jonathan Kaufman (1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States) C Craig Hofmeister (1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States) N Nishi Shah (2Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, United States) R Richa Parikh (2Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, United States) H Hervé Avet-Loiseau (Unité Génomique du Myélome, Hôpital Universitaire de Toulouse Oncopole, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France) N Nikhil Munshi (3VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA) S Sagar Lonial (Emory University, Atlanta) N Noopur Raje (1Cellular Immunotherapy Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA)

Abstract

Abstract Background: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) remains standard for multiple myeloma (MM) but is limited by probe scope and cell number requirements. Growing evidence and recent IMS/IMWG guidelines underscore the need for sequencing-based assays for comprehensive genomic profiling. PlasmaSeq is a next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform designed to detect copy number alterations, structural variants, and somatic mutations relevant for risk stratification and immunotherapeutic targeting. We evaluated the clinical performance of PlasmaSeq versus FISH in bone marrow (BM) samples from routine diagnostic workflows. Methods 155 BM aspirate samples from MM patients including newly-diagnosed, relapsed and maintenance stages from four academic institutions were analyzed by PlasmaSeq (NCGM, Raleigh NC) in routine clinical testing. One sample was excluded from this analysis due to sample instability. Testing was performed in a central laboratory. CD138 enrichment was performed using a custom optimized method followed by NGS. Sequencing depths varied from 250x – 1000x across all samples. PlasmaSeq integrates copy number, structural, and mutation analyses to determine clonal plasma cell populations and genomic alterations. PlasmaSeq tumor purity (post-CD138 enrichment) was analyzed alongside BM plasma cell content (as available). Cases with PlasmaSeq and FISH, were evaluated for concordance and discordant findings were reviewed. Results DNA input ranged from 1ng/ul to 338ng/ul with the BM plasma cell content ranging from <5% to ~95%, and PlasmaSeq tumor purity values (post-enrichment) ranging from <1% up to >90%, reflecting variable quality and clonality. Clonal plasma cells were detected in 110/154 (71%) samples based on an integrated clonality tool. Of 110 patients, PlasmaSeq identified 45 (41%) Hyperdiploid (HMM), 46(42%) 1q gain, 10(9%) 1pdel , 11(10%) t(4:14), 4(3.6%) t(14:16), 12(11%) t(14:20), 28(25%) t(11:14) and 20(18%) 17p deletion cases. PlasmaSeq identified mutations in MM-relevant genes in 59% (65/110) of samples. RAS mutations—including KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF—were observed in 37% (41/110) of clonal samples, while TP53 mutations were found in 11% (12/110). Variant allele frequencies (VAF) were noted to be distributed across a wide spectrum from 5% to 98%. In 23 of 110 PlasmaSeq-positive cases (21%), FISH was either not performed or unsuccessful; all 23 had clinically significant findings on PlasmaSeq. 87 cases had results from both tests: 57 (66%) were concordant and 30 cases (34%) were discordant, with 25 abnormalities unique to PlasmaSeq. Thirteen cases unique to FISH were ruled out by sequencing, through attribution to off-target FISH probe hybridization based on confirmatory data from PlasmaSeq with 1 patient unexplained for a 1q gain. Of the 25 events detected by PlasmaSeq alone, 13 cases were identified as HMM not tested by FISH, a narrow gain1q event below FISH resolution, t(14;20), t(11;14), t(4;14) translocations not tested by FISH, and a narrow del1p32 missed by FISH, highlighting the sensitivity and specificity of the assay. PlasmaSeq was also able to refine off target changes otherwise not clearly delineated by FISH. For example, a patient with a (11;14) translocation by FISH which proved to be an atypical translocation not involving CCDN1 by PlasmaSeq. Furthermore, 2 samples with low tumor purity (<5% by PlasmaSeq) still reported (14;20) translocations—events not targeted by FISH. Conclusions PlasmaSeq achieved a 100% diagnostic rate in all 110 clonal cases. In 53% (58/110), PlasmaSeq refined FISH results. PlasmaSeq provided actionable in 71% of all real-world BM samples, with varied tumor purity estimates supporting interpretability in low clonal populations. PlasmaSeq showed high concordance with FISH in evaluable samples but revealed additional high-risk variation not captured by FISH, especially in partially tested or low tumor purity samples. The substantial fraction of patients harboring RAS pathway and TP53 mutations also underscores the need for NGS-based profiling. This data also suggests that 250x or deeper sequencing is required to analyze multiclonal plasma cell populations. PlasmaSeq thus provides a quick and reliable sequencing-based method to adequately implement IMS/IMWG recommendations and clearly shows its benefits over traditional FISH based methodologies while providing data for mutations in genes such as TNFRSF17 and GPRC5D in the era of targeted therapy in myeloma.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 4026-4026
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (25)

P

Parth Shah

A

Andrew Yee

1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, United States

M

Mehmet Samur

2Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston

A

Adam Sperling

1Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Boston, United States

V

Vikas Gupta

B

Benjamin Barwick

1Emory University, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Atlanta, United States

J

Jeremiah Karrs

2Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lebanon, United States

R

Rutu Vyas

3Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States

W

Wahab Khan

L

Liam Donnelly

2Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lebanon, United States

K

Kacthary Sanclemente

1Massachusetts General Hospital, Cancer Center, Boston, United States

D

Diana Cirstea

3Hematology and Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

P

Prabhjot Kaur

S

Sadhanshu Shukla

5NCGM, Apex, United States

Y

Yuxin Liu

A

Ajay Nooka

4Emory University, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, United States

N

Nisha Joseph

1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States

J

Jonathan Kaufman

1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States

C

Craig Hofmeister

1Emory University of Winship Cancer Institute, Heamtolgy and Oncology, ATLANTA, United States

N

Nishi Shah

2Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, United States

R

Richa Parikh

2Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, United States

H

Hervé Avet-Loiseau

Unité Génomique du Myélome, Hôpital Universitaire de Toulouse Oncopole, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France

N

Nikhil Munshi

3VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA

S

Sagar Lonial

Emory University, Atlanta

N

Noopur Raje

1Cellular Immunotherapy Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA