| Literature DB >> 23431389 |
Alessandra Cesano1, Santosh Putta, David B Rosen, Aileen C Cohen, Urte Gayko, Kavita Mathi, John Woronicz, Rachael E Hawtin, Larry Cripe, Zhuoxin Sun, Martin S Tallman, Elisabeth Paietta.
Abstract
FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 receptor (FLT3) internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations result in constitutive activation of this receptor and have been shown to increase the risk of relapse in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, substantial heterogeneity in clinical outcomes still exists within both the ITD mutated and unmutated AML subgroups, suggesting alternative mechanisms of disease relapse not accounted by FLT3 mutational status. Single cell network profiling (SCNP) is a multiparametric flow cytometry based assay that simultaneously measures, in a quantitative fashion and at the single cell level, both extracellular surface marker levels and changes in intracellular signaling proteins in response to extracellular modulators. We previously reported an initial characterization of FLT3 ITD-mediated signaling using SCNP. Herein SCNP was applied sequentially to two separate cohorts of samples collected from elderly AML patients at diagnosis. In the first (training) study, AML samples carrying unmutated, wild-type FLT3 (FLT3 WT) displayed a wide range of induced signaling, with a fraction having signaling profiles comparable to FLT3 ITD AML samples. Conversely, the FLT3 ITD AML samples displayed more homogeneous induced signaling, with the exception of patients with low (<40%) mutational load, which had profiles comparable to FLT3 WT AML samples. This observation was then confirmed in an independent (verification) cohort. Data from the second cohort were also used to assess the association between SCNP data and disease-free survival (DFS) in the context of FLT3 and nucleophosmin (NPM1) mutational status among patients who achieved complete remission (CR) to induction chemotherapy. The combination of SCNP read outs together with FLT3 and NPM1 molecular status improved the DFS prediction accuracy of the latter. Taken together, these results emphasize the value of comprehensive functional assessment of biologically relevant signaling pathways in AML as a basis for the development of highly predictive tests for guidance of post-remission therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23431389 PMCID: PMC3576376 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study Design Diagram.
Influence of FLT3 ITD mutation status on functional signaling was studied in two independent data sets; observations made in the first set (training, N = 46) were verified in the second set (Verification, N = 104).
Clinical characteristics for training and verification sets.
| Study 1: training | Study 2: verification | ||||||||
| Variable | Categories |
|
| All (%) n = 46 |
|
|
| All (%) n = 104 |
|
| Age, years | Median | 69.5 | 70 | 70 | 0.73 | 69 | 66 | 68 | 0.15 |
| Range | 61–81 | 61–74 | 61–81 | 60–83 | 61–79 | 60–83 | |||
| Gender | Male | 23 | 5 | 28 (60.9) | 1.00 | 46 | 9 | 55 (53) | 0.62 |
| Female | 15 | 3 | 18 (39.1) | 39 | 10 | 49 (47) | |||
| Cytogenetic risk | Favorable | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 0.24 | 2 | 1 | 3 (3) | 0.31 |
| Intermediate | 25 | 8 | 33 (71.7) | 28 | 5 | 33 (31.7) | |||
| Unfavorable | 11 | 0 | 11 (23.9) | 26 | 3 | 29 (28) | |||
| Missing/unk | 2 | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 29 | 10 | 39 (37.5) | |||
| Race | White | 36 | 8 | 44 (95.7) | 1 | 81 | 19 | 100 (96) | 1 |
| Black | 2 | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 4 | 0 | 4 (4) | |||
| Disease | De novo | 12 | 2 |
| 1.00 | 56 | 14 |
| 0.9 |
| Secondary | 24 | 6 |
| 25 | 5 |
| |||
| RAEB-t | 2 | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 3 | 0 | 3 (3) | |||
| RAEB | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 | 1 (1) | |||
| WBC | 30 000 or less | 21 | 4 | 25 (54.3) | 1 | 56 | 11 | 67 (64) | 0.59 |
| Greater than 30 000 | 17 | 4 | 21 (45.7) | 29 | 8 | 37 (36) | |||
| Median (×10∧3) | 23.35 | 26.9 | 23.35 | 0.82 | 15.3 | 26.8 | 16 | 0.31 | |
| Range (×10∧3) | 1.8–158.7 | 3.4–91.1 | 1.8–158.7 | 1.4–120.2 | 5.4–97.7 | 1.4–120.2 | |||
|
| Yes | 10 | 4 | 14 (30.4) | 0.48 | 24 | 8 | 32 (31) | 0.28 |
| No | 26 | 4 | 30 (65.2) | 61 | 11 | 72 (69) | |||
| Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | |||
Bold text indicates fields that are significantly different between the training and verification sets.
WBC indicates white blood cell; NPM1, nucleophosmin 1; RAEB-t, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation; and RAEB, refractory anemia with excess blasts.
Figure 2Muted FLT3L-induced signaling in FLT3 ITD samples.
(A) FLT3 ITD samples demonstrate lower FLT3L-induced PI3K, RAS and STAT signaling. Time-course of FLT3L-induced signaling of p-S6 (lower left), p-ERK (upper right), p-AKT (upper left), and p-STAT5 (lower right) at 5, 10 and 15 min time points in healthy bone marrow myeloblasts (BMMb) (left), and leukemic blasts from AML donors with (middle) or without (right) FLT3 ITD mutation. Donors with low mutational load (<40%) are identified with an arrow.
Figure 3In vitro apoptosis responses in FLT3 ITD samples.
Staurosporine→cPARP Ua metric (left graph), Ara-C/Daunorubicin→cPARP Ua metric (middle graph), and etoposide→cPARP Ua metric (right graph) for healthy (left), FLT3 ITD (middle) and FLT3 WT (right) bone marrow. Samples with low mutational load (<40%) are identified with an arrow.
Figure 4PCA pathway analysis of FLT3 ITD AML samples and healthy BMMb compared to FLT3 WT AML.
PCA analysis of FLT3L-induced signaling (PC 1) and AraC/Daunorubicin-induced apoptosis measured by cPARP (PC 2) in healthy BMMb (blue dots), FLT3 ITD (red dots) and FLT3 WT (green dots). Donors with low FLT3 ITD mutational load (<40%) are indicated by arrows.
Figure 5Comparison of FLT3 ITD signaling versus FLT3 WT signaling.
Box and whisker plots of FLT3L-induced p-S6 with the log2fold metric in increasing mutational load (ITD−[FLT3 WT] = 0%, ITD+[FLT3 ITD]≥0%, ITD+30≥30%, ITD+40≥40%, ITD+50≥50% ITD, respectively). This is the primary objective analysis.
Figure 6Association of FLT3 ITD and NPM1 mutation with DFS.
(A) Patient cohort used for DFS modeling. (B) Cox-proportional hazards model for DFS using FLT3 mutation data log h(t) = β0+β1*FLT3 ITD. Probability of DFS versus days of complete disease response (CR) for FLT3 ITD AML samples (solid line) and FLT3 WT samples (dotted line). (C) Cox-proportional hazards model for DFS using NPM1 data log h(t) = β0+β1*NPM1 mutated. Probability of DFS versus days of complete disease response (CR) for NPM1-mutated AML samples (solid line) and NPM1 WT samples (dotted line).
Clinical outcomes: verification cohort.
| Variable | Range |
|
| All |
|
| Induction response | NR | 56 | 9 | 65 | 0.19 |
| CR | 29 | 10 | 39 | ||
| Post Remission Response (CR Patients) | Relapse or died within 1 year | 16 | 8 | 24 | 0.20 |
| Continued CR for 1 year or longer | 13 | 2 | 15 |
Fisher's exact test was applied to categorical variables.
NR indicates non-responder; and CR, complete responder.
Clinical characteristics: verification cohort (CR only).
| Variable | Categories | DFS Less than 1 year n = 24 | DFS 1 year or greater n = 15 | All CR n = 39 |
|
| Age (years) | Median | 65.5 | 69 | 68 | 0.455 |
| Range | 60–79 | 62–78 | 60–79 | ||
| Sex | Male | 11 | 3 | 14 | 0.019 |
| Female | 13 | 12 | 25 | ||
| Cytogenetics | Favorable | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.015 |
| Intermediate/Missing | 18 | 14 | 32 | ||
| Unfavorable | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Race | White | 23 | 15 | 38 | 0.231 |
| Black | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Secondary AML | De novo | 19 | 11 | 30 | 0.112 |
| Secondary | 4 | 4 | 8 | ||
| RAEB-t | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| RAEB | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| WBC | 30 000 or less | 15 | 11 | 26 | 0.592 |
| Greater than 30 000 | 9 | 4 | 13 | ||
| Median (×10∧3) | 15.05 | 9.0 | 14.65 | 0.254 | |
| Range (×10∧3) | 1.6–97.7 | 1.4–53.6 | 1.4–97.7 | ||
|
| Yes | 12 | 6 | 18 | 0.982 |
| No | 12 | 9 | 21 | ||
|
| Yes | 8 | 2 | 10 | 0.200 |
| No | 16 | 13 | 29 |
Modeling of DFS was performed only among patients who achieved CR to induction therapy. Each of the clinical co-variates, demographic characteristics and molecular characterics was tested for association with DFS using logrank test.
Logrank test was applied to compute p-values.
Cytogenetics was coded as continuous variable: Favorable = 1, Intermediate/Unknown = 2, Unfavorable = 3.
DFS indicates disease free survival; CR, complete responder; WBC, white blood cell; NPM1 nucleophosmin 1; RAEB-t, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation; and RAEB, refractory anemia with excess blasts.
Nodes in combination with FLT3 mutation improve DFS modeling.
| Population | Modulator | Modulation time, minutes | Antibody | Metric |
|
|
|
|
| Leukemic | FLT3L | 10 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.038 | 0.034 | 0.736 | 0.141 |
| FLT3L | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.805 | 0.077 | |
| G-CSF | 15 | p-STAT3 | log2 fold | 0.147 | 0.090 | 0.714 | 0.169 | |
| PMA | 15 | p-ERK | log2 fold | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.252 | 0.019 | |
| PMA | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.302 | 0.009 | |
| SCF | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.030 | 0.020 | 0.899 | 0.089 | |
| Leukemic | AraC+Dauno | 1440 | CD34 | Uu | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.064 | 0.013 |
| AraC+Dauno | 1440 | cPARP | Uu | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.002 | |
| AraC+Dauno | 1440 | p-Chk2 | Uu | 0.036 | 0.024 | 0.064 | 0.034 | |
| Etoposide | 1440 | cPARP | Uu | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.025 | 0.010 | |
| Etoposide | 1440 | p-Chk2 | Uu | 0.205 | 0.157 | 0.263 | 0.196 |
The table displays the p-values for the models (P model) as well as the components: node (P node), FLT3 ITD status (P FLT3 MUT), and the interaction term (P interaction term).
p-S6 indicates phosphorylated S6 ribosomal protein; G.CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; p-STAT3, phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; PMA, phorbol myristate acetate; p-ERK, phosphorylated endoplasmic reticulum kinase; SCF, Skp, Cullin, F-box containing complex; CD34, cluster of differentiation 34; cPARP, cleaved poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase; and p-Chk2, phosphorylated checkpoint 2 protein kinase.
Sample size n = 39 for each row.
Wald test used.
t-test (H0:Slope = 0). Significant p-value suggests influence of model component on hazard ratio.
Log of hazard ratio fit of mutation data plus node with interaction term using Cox Proportional -hazards regression model: log h(t) = β0+β1*FLT3 ITD+β2*node+β2*node*FLT3 ITD.
Signaling examined in non-apoptotic leukemic cells (cPARP negative).
Interaction term included in model to evaluate simultaneous influence of mutation and node on hazard ratio.
Figure 7SCNP models compared to FLT3 mutational status or molecular risk groups in modeling DFS.
(A) Models for DFS based on SCNP readouts and FLT3 mutational status allow for better separation of patients compared to modeling based on FLT3 mutational status alone. The DFS of patients modeled based on SCNP readouts alone vs. combined with FLT3 mutational status is shown by the blue lines (Model− vs. Model+) and DFS modeled based on FLT3 mutational status only is shown by the red lines (FLT3 WT vs. FLT3 ITD). The SCNP model in the upper panel (blue lines) incorporates the SCNP node FLT3L→pS6 and in the lower panel incorporates the SCNP node Ara-C/Dauno→cPARP. (B) Models for DFS based on SCNP read outs and molecular risk group allow for clear separation of two patient groups. The DFS of patients modeled based on SCNP readouts alone vs. combined with molecular risk groups (3 groups) is shown by the blue lines (Model− vs. Model+). DFS modeled based only on molecular risk groups is not shown since it provides prediction into 3 groups. The SCNP model in the upper panel incorporates the SCNP node FLT3L→pS6 and in the lower panel the SCNP node Ara-C/Dauno→cPARP.
Nodes in combination with molecular characterization improve DFS modeling.
| Population | Modulator | Modulation time, minutes | Antibody | Metric |
|
|
|
|
| Leukemic | FLT3L | 10 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.027 | 0.090 | 0.191 | 0.025 |
| FLT3L | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.007 | 0.059 | 0.242 | 0.012 | |
| G-CSF | 15 | p-STAT3 | log2 fold | 0.108 | 0.158 | 0.681 | 0.054 | |
| PMA | 15 | p-ERK | log2 fold | 0.023 | 0.083 | 0.134 | 0.021 | |
| PMA | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.003 | 0.015 | 0.096 | 0.002 | |
| SCF | 15 | p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.038 | 0.195 | 0.519 | 0.042 | |
| Leukemic | AraC+Dauno | 1440 | CD34 | Uu | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| AraC+Dauno | 1440 | cPARP | Uu | 0.018 | 0.032 | 0.012 | 0.006 | |
| AraC+Dauno | 1440 | p-Chk2 | Uu | 0.068 | 0.055 | 0.029 | 0.019 | |
| Etopo | 1440 | cPARP | Uu | 0.030 | 0.045 | 0.018 | 0.009 | |
| Etopo | 1440 | p-Chk2 | Uu | 0.132 | 0.098 | 0.057 | 0.042 |
The table displays the p-values for the models (P Model) as well as the components: node (P Node), molecular characterization (P MolChar), and the interaction term (P interaction term).
p-S6 indicates phosphorylated S6 ribosomal protein; G.CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; p-STAT3, phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; PMA, phorbol myristate acetate; p-ERK, phosphorylated endoplasmic reticulum kinase; SCF, Skp, Cullin, and F-box containing complex; CD34, cluster of differentiation 34; cPARP, cleaved poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase; and p-Chk2, phosphorylated checkpoint 2 protein kinase.
Sample size n = 39 for each row
Wald test used.
t-test (H0:Slope = 0). Significant p-value suggests influence of model component on hazard ratio.
Log of hazard ratio fit of MolChar plus node with interaction term using Cox Proportional -hazards regression: log h(t) = β0+β1*FLT3 ITD+β2*node+β2*node*FLT3 ITD.
Signaling examined in non-apoptotic Leukemic cells (cPARP negative).
Interaction term included in model to evaluate simultaneous influence of MolChar and node on hazard ratio.
Figure 8Multivariate model in FLT3 WT AML donors using combination of SCNP nodes: association with DFS.
Association of SCNP readouts from apoptosis (Etoposide→cPARP | Uu) and proliferation (FLT3L→p-S6 | Log2Fold) pathways with DFS in a multivariate model among the patients with AML and FLT3 WT disease (n = 29).
SCNP nodes likely contribute unique data for the prediction of DFS in FLT3 WT AML.
| Model | Node1 | Node2 |
|
|
|
| #1 | AraC+Daunorubicin→cPARP | Uu | FLT3L→p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.046 | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| #2 | Etoposide→cPARP | Uu | FLT3L→p-S6 | log2 fold | 0.038 | 0.037 | 0.022 |
log h(t) = β0+β1*Node1+β2*Node2.
Sample size n = 29 for each row.
Wald test used.
t-test(H0:Slope = 0). Significant p-value suggests influence of model component on hazard ratio.