PURPOSE: Molecular risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is largely based on genetic markers. However, epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation, deregulate gene expression and may also have prognostic impact. We evaluated the clinical relevance of integrating DNA methylation and genetic information in AML. METHODS: Next-generation sequencing analysis of methylated DNA identified differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with prognostic mutations in older (≥ 60 years) cytogenetically normal (CN) patients with AML (n = 134). Genes with promoter DMRs and expression levels significantly associated with outcome were used to compute a prognostic gene expression weighted summary score that was tested and validated in four independent patient sets (n = 355). RESULTS: In the training set, we identified seven genes (CD34, RHOC, SCRN1, F2RL1, FAM92A1, MIR155HG, and VWA8) with promoter DMRs and expression associated with overall survival (OS; P ≤ .001). Each gene had high DMR methylation and lower expression, which were associated with better outcome. A weighted summary expression score of the seven gene expression levels was computed. A low score was associated with a higher complete remission (CR) rate and longer disease-free survival and OS (P < .001 for all end points). This was validated in multivariable models and in two younger (< 60 years) and two older independent sets of patients with CN-AML. Considering the seven genes individually, the fewer the genes with high expression, the better the outcome. Younger and older patients with no genes or one gene with high expression had the best outcomes (CR rate, 94% and 87%, respectively; 3-year OS, 80% and 42%, respectively). CONCLUSION: A seven-gene score encompassing epigenetic and genetic prognostic information identifies novel AML subsets that are meaningful for treatment guidance.
PURPOSE: Molecular risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is largely based on genetic markers. However, epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation, deregulate gene expression and may also have prognostic impact. We evaluated the clinical relevance of integrating DNA methylation and genetic information in AML. METHODS: Next-generation sequencing analysis of methylated DNA identified differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with prognostic mutations in older (≥ 60 years) cytogenetically normal (CN) patients with AML (n = 134). Genes with promoter DMRs and expression levels significantly associated with outcome were used to compute a prognostic gene expression weighted summary score that was tested and validated in four independent patient sets (n = 355). RESULTS: In the training set, we identified seven genes (CD34, RHOC, SCRN1, F2RL1, FAM92A1, MIR155HG, and VWA8) with promoter DMRs and expression associated with overall survival (OS; P ≤ .001). Each gene had high DMR methylation and lower expression, which were associated with better outcome. A weighted summary expression score of the seven gene expression levels was computed. A low score was associated with a higher complete remission (CR) rate and longer disease-free survival and OS (P < .001 for all end points). This was validated in multivariable models and in two younger (< 60 years) and two older independent sets of patients with CN-AML. Considering the seven genes individually, the fewer the genes with high expression, the better the outcome. Younger and older patients with no genes or one gene with high expression had the best outcomes (CR rate, 94% and 87%, respectively; 3-year OS, 80% and 42%, respectively). CONCLUSION: A seven-gene score encompassing epigenetic and genetic prognostic information identifies novel AML subsets that are meaningful for treatment guidance.
Authors: Constance Baer; Rainer Claus; Lukas P Frenzel; Manuela Zucknick; Yoon Jung Park; Lei Gu; Dieter Weichenhan; Martina Fischer; Christian Philipp Pallasch; Esther Herpel; Michael Rehli; John C Byrd; Clemens-Martin Wendtner; Christoph Plass Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: William Blum; Ramiro Garzon; Rebecca B Klisovic; Sebastian Schwind; Alison Walker; Susan Geyer; Shujun Liu; Violaine Havelange; Heiko Becker; Larry Schaaf; Jon Mickle; Hollie Devine; Cheryl Kefauver; Steven M Devine; Kenneth K Chan; Nyla A Heerema; Clara D Bloomfield; Michael R Grever; John C Byrd; Miguel Villalona-Calero; Carlo M Croce; Guido Marcucci Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Rainer Claus; Björn Hackanson; Anna R Poetsch; Manuela Zucknick; Miriam Sonnet; Nadja Blagitko-Dorfs; Jan Hiller; Stefan Wilop; Tim H Brümmendorf; Oliver Galm; Uwe Platzbecker; John C Byrd; Konstanze Döhner; Hartmut Döhner; Michael Lübbert; Christoph Plass Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Timothy J Ley; Li Ding; Matthew J Walter; Michael D McLellan; Tamara Lamprecht; David E Larson; Cyriac Kandoth; Jacqueline E Payton; Jack Baty; John Welch; Christopher C Harris; Cheryl F Lichti; R Reid Townsend; Robert S Fulton; David J Dooling; Daniel C Koboldt; Heather Schmidt; Qunyuan Zhang; John R Osborne; Ling Lin; Michelle O'Laughlin; Joshua F McMichael; Kim D Delehaunty; Sean D McGrath; Lucinda A Fulton; Vincent J Magrini; Tammi L Vickery; Jasreet Hundal; Lisa L Cook; Joshua J Conyers; Gary W Swift; Jerry P Reed; Patricia A Alldredge; Todd Wylie; Jason Walker; Joelle Kalicki; Mark A Watson; Sharon Heath; William D Shannon; Nobish Varghese; Rakesh Nagarajan; Peter Westervelt; Michael H Tomasson; Daniel C Link; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jason H Mendler; Kati Maharry; Michael D Radmacher; Krzysztof Mrózek; Heiko Becker; Klaus H Metzeler; Sebastian Schwind; Susan P Whitman; Jihane Khalife; Jessica Kohlschmidt; Deedra Nicolet; Bayard L Powell; Thomas H Carter; Meir Wetzler; Joseph O Moore; Jonathan E Kolitz; Maria R Baer; Andrew J Carroll; Richard A Larson; Michael A Caligiuri; Guido Marcucci; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Khoan Vu; Shivaprasad Manjappa; John F DiPersio; Feng Gao; Peter Westervelt; Ravi Vij; Keith E Stockerl-Goldstein; Geoffrey L Uy; Camille N Abboud; Mark A Schroeder; Todd A Fehniger; Amanda F Cashen; Rizwan Romee Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ramiro Garzon; Clara D Bloomfield; Dimitrios Papaioannou; Deedra Nicolet; Hatice G Ozer; Krzysztof Mrózek; Stefano Volinia; Paolo Fadda; Andrew J Carroll; Jessica Kohlschmidt; Jonathan E Kolitz; Eunice S Wang; Richard M Stone; John C Byrd Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: David E Frankhouser; Mark Murphy; James S Blachly; Jincheol Park; Mike W Zoller; Javkhlan-Ochir Ganbat; John Curfman; John C Byrd; Shili Lin; Guido Marcucci; Pearlly Yan; Ralf Bundschuh Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2014-08-31 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Ivana V Yang; Brent S Pedersen; Andrew Liu; George T O'Connor; Stephen J Teach; Meyer Kattan; Rana Tawil Misiak; Rebecca Gruchalla; Suzanne F Steinbach; Stanley J Szefler; Michelle A Gill; Agustin Calatroni; Gloria David; Corinne E Hennessy; Elizabeth J Davidson; Weiming Zhang; Peter Gergen; Alkis Togias; William W Busse; David A Schwartz Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Marlise R Luskin; Phyllis A Gimotty; Catherine Smith; Alison W Loren; Maria E Figueroa; Jenna Harrison; Zhuoxin Sun; Martin S Tallman; Elisabeth M Paietta; Mark R Litzow; Ari M Melnick; Ross L Levine; Hugo F Fernandez; Selina M Luger; Martin Carroll; Stephen R Master; Gerald B W Wertheim Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2016-06-16