Multiple Low Level Mutations Identifies Imatinib Resistant CML Patients At Risk of Poor Response to Second-Line Inhibitor Therapy, Irrespective of the Resistance Profile of the Mutations
Authors: Parker Wendy T , Ho Musei , Scott Hamish S , Hughes Timothy P. , Branford Susan 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 111

Specific imatinib resistant BCR-ABL1 mutations confer clinical resistance to nilotinib (NIL; Y253H, E255K/V, T315I, F359V/C) and/or dasatinib (DAS; V299L, T315I/A, F317L/I/V/C). Therefore, mutation analysis is recommended for CML patients (pts) after imatinib failure to facilitate selection of appropriate therapy. However, around 40% of chronic phase (CP) pts without these NIL/DAS resistant mutations also fail second line inhibitor therapy. For imatinib resistant pts without these mutations at the time of commencing NIL/DAS therapy (switchover) we investigated whether sensitive mutation analysis could identity pts at risk of poor response to subsequent therapy.

Switchover samples of 220 imatinib resistant pts (DAS n=131, NIL n=89) were analysed by direct sequencing (detection limit 10–20%) and sensitive, high throughput mass spectrometry (mass spec; Sequenom MassARRAY, detection limit 0.05–0.5%), which detects 31 common BCR-ABL1 mutations (approximately 89% of mutations detected in pts receiving imatinib). We previously demonstrated that mass spec could detect NIL/DAS resistant mutations at switchover in an extra 9% of pts compared to sequencing and that these low level resistant mutations were associated with subsequent failure of these inhibitors (Parker et al, JCO. 2011 In Press). Therefore, for the current analysis, pts with NIL/DAS resistant mutations detected by either method (n=45) were excluded since response is already known to be poor in these cases.

In the switchover samples of the remaining 175 pts, 159 mutations were detected in 86 pts by mass spec, but just 108 mutations were detected in 89 pts by sequencing. Thirteen rare mutations detected by sequencing were not included in the mass spec assay design. Mass spec detected all other mutations detected by sequencing, plus an additional 64 low level mutations. Multiple NIL/DAS sensitive mutations (≥2 mutations) were detected at switchover in more of the 175 pts by mass spec (34/175, 19%; 2–9 mutations per pt) than sequencing (16/175, 9%; 2–3 mutations per pt), P=.009. We divided pts into 2 groups; those with multiple mutations detected by mass spec at switchover (n=34) and those with 0/1 mutation (n=141), and investigated the impact of multiple mutations on response to subsequent NIL/DAS therapy. Pts with 0 or 1 mutation, and similarly pts with 2 or >2 mutations, were grouped together, as no difference in response was observed. The median follow up for CP, accelerated phase and blast crisis pts was 17 (2–33), 18 (1–33) and 3 (1–27) mo, and the frequency of multiple mutations was 18%, 24% and 18%, respectively. During follow up, multiple mutations at switchover was associated with lower rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR; 21% vs 50%, P=.003, Fig 1A) and major molecular response (MMR; 6% vs 31%, P=.005, Fig 1B), and a higher incidence of acquiring new NIL/DAS resistant mutations detectable by sequencing (56% vs 25%, P=.0009, Fig 1C). At 18 mo, the failure-free survival rate (European LeukemiaNet recommendations) for CP pts with multiple mutations at switchover was 33% compared to 51% for CP pts with 0 or 1 mutation (P=.26, Fig 1D).

The number of mutations detected per pt by mass spec at switchover (max of 9, 8 of 86 pts with mutations had ≥4, 9%) far exceeded the number concurrently detected by sequencing (max of 3). This suggests that mass spec detected a pool of subclonal mutants, each with a small survival advantage after imatinib therapy that was insufficient for their clonal predominance. Multiple low level mutations may be a marker of an increased propensity for subsequent selection of resistant mutations, possibly driven by genetic instability, demonstrating the advantage of a sensitive multiplex mutation assay.

In conclusion, sensitive mutation analysis identified a poor-risk subgroup with multiple mutations that were not identified by sequencing. This subgroup represented 15.5% of the total cohort (34/220), who would not otherwise be classified as being at risk of poor response on the basis of their mutation status. These pts did not have NIL/DAS resistant mutations at switchover; however, they had a lower incidence of CCyR and MMR, and higher incidence of acquiring new NIL/DAS resistant mutations during NIL/DAS therapy compared to pts with 0 or 1 mutation. This poor-risk subgroup may warrant closer monitoring or experimental approaches to reduce the high risk of kinase inhibitor failure after imatinib resistance.

Disclosures:

Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Branford:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding.