| Literature DB >> 27062340 |
Bianhong Wang1, Yangyang Liu2, Guangyuan Hou2, Lili Wang3, Na Lv3, Yuanyuan Xu3, Yihan Xu3, Xiuli Wang2, Zhaoling Xuan2, Yu Jing3, Honghua Li3, Xiangshu Jin3, Ailing Deng3, Li Wang3, Xiaoning Gao3, Liping Dou3, Junbin Liang2, Chongjian Chen2, Yonghui Li3, Li Yu3.
Abstract
Intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (IR-AML), which accounts for a substantial number of AML cases, is highly heterogeneous. Although several mutations have been identified, the heterogeneity of AML is uncertain because novel mutations have yet to be discovered. Here we applied next generation sequencing (NGS) platform to screen mutational hotspots in 410 genes relevant to hematological malignancy. IR-AML samples (N=95) were sequenced by Illumina Hiseq and mutations in 101 genes were identified. Only seven genes (CEBPA, NPM1, DNMT3A, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, IDH2 and WT1) were mutated in more than 10% of patients. Genetic interaction analysis identified several cooperative and exclusive patterns of overlapping mutations. Mutational analysis indicated some correlation between genotype and phenotype. FLT3-ITD mutations were identified as independent factors of poor prognosis, while CEBPA mutations were independent favorable factors. Co-occurrence of FLT3-ITD, NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations was identified with associated with specific clinical AML features and poor outcomes. Furthermore, by integrating multiple mutations in the survival analysis, 95 IR-AML patients could be stratified into three distinct risk groups allowing reductions in IR-AML by one-third. Our study offers deep insights into the molecular pathogenesis and biology of AML and indicated that the prognosis of IR-AML could be further stratified by different mutation combinations which may direct future treatment intervention.Entities:
Keywords: intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia; mutational screening and analysis; next generation sequencing; risk stratification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27062340 PMCID: PMC5077997 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinical and pathologic characteristics of 95 IR-AML patients
| Characteristic | Median(range) or Number |
|---|---|
| 45 (12–88) | |
| Male | 55/95 |
| Female | 40/95 |
| WBC-G/L | 21.33 (0.87–405.13) |
| Bone marrow blast at diagnosis, % | 64.4 (20–94.4) |
| AML with minimal maturation: M0 | 0 |
| AML without maturation: M1 | 4/95 |
| AML with maturation: M2 | 23/95 |
| Acute myelomonocytic leukemia: M4 | 28/95 |
| Acute monoblastic or monocytic leukemia: M5 | 31/95 |
| Acute erythroid leukemia: M6 | 5/95 |
| Unclassified | 4/95 |
| CD13 | 73/95 |
| CD33 | 86/95 |
| CD34 | 68/95 |
| CD117 | 77/95 |
| MPO | 77/95 |
| Abnormal karyotype | 20/95 |
| Normal karyotype | 75/95 |
| IA/DA/MA | 65/95 |
| DCAG | 20/95 |
| Others | 10/95 |
| Achieving CR | 65/95 |
| Non-remission | 22/95 |
| Unevaluated | 8/95 |
| Chemotherapy | 25/65 |
| HSCT | 40/65 |
Abbreviation: WBC, white blood cell count. FAB, French American British. CR, complete remission. IA, idarubicin+ cytarabine. DA, daunorubicin+ cytarabine. MA, mitoxantrone+cytarabine. DCAG, decitabine+aclarubicin+cytarabine+ G-CSF. HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Figure 1Sensitivity and false-positive mutation detection rates
a. In Kasumi-1 and K562 cell lines, mutation sensitivity can be calculated and more than 80% of unique mutations within Kasumi-1 can be detected. b. The false-positive rate revealed that more than 98.5% mutations were consistent with Kasumi-1 cell line data.
Figure 2Mutation frequencies
a. Mutation frequencies that occurred in more than four samples. Mutations were identified in 101 of 410 genes analyzed. Only seven genes (CEBPA, NPM1, DNMT3A, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, IDH2 and WT1) were mutated in more than 10% of patients. b. Mutation frequencies according to functional classification. Mutations in class I and II and epigenetic modifiers were frequently identified.
Figure 3Mutation profile according to clinical features
Mutation profile according to clinical features (FAB category, clinical efficacy and karyotype). Significant mutations identified in AML patients are shown. Some mutations co-occurred or were exclusive and some were associated with specific clinical features. Yellow boxes indicate single mutations and pink boxes indicate double mutations.
Gene mutations affecting CR
| Mutations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 4/9(44.4%) | 61/78(78.2%) | 0.042 | |
| 8/15(53.3%) | 57/72(79.2%) | 0.036 | |
| 7/14(50.0%) | 58/73(79.5%) | 0.020 | |
| 25/25(100%) | 40/62(64.5%) | 0.001 | |
| 0.148(0.034–0.649) | 0.011 | ||
| 0.185(0.053–0.644) | 0.008 | ||
Abbreviations: CR, complete remission; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. By Pearson's χ2 test, CEBPA mutations were identified as favorable factors for achieving CR, while ASXL1, DNMT3A, FLT3-ITD mutations were as unfavorable factors. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that only FLT3-ITD and ASXL1 mutations were identified as unfavorable factors for achieving CR.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier curves of OS according to the mutations are shown
Overall survival stratified by mutational status. P value was estimated by the log-rank test. The mutated number of ASXL1 (a), DNMT3A (b), FLT3-ITD (c) and CEBPA (d) for survival analysis was 6, 12, 14 and 22, respectively. Patients with ASXL1, DNMT3A or FLT3-ITD mutations have worse survival than wild type groups, while patients with CEBPA mutations have better OS than those without mutations.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier curves of DFS according to the mutations are shown
Disease-free survival stratified by mutational status. P value was estimated by the log-rank test. The mutated number of ASXL1 (a), DNMT3A (b), FLT3-ITD (c) and CEBPA (d) for survival analysis was 6, 12, 14 and 22, respectively. Patients with ASXL1, DNMT3A or FLT3-ITD mutations have worse survival than wild type group, while patients with CEBPA mutations have better DFS than those without mutations.
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis for DFS and OS
| Univariated analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log rank χ2
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age> | 0.001 | 11.574 | >0.1 | |
| 0.204 | 1.617 | >0.1 | ||
| 0.011 | 6.399 | >0.1 | ||
| 0.007 | 7.396 | 0.002 | 3.271 (1.541–6.944) | |
| 0.015 | 5.939 | 0.046 | 0.407 (0.168–0.985) | |
| HSCT | <0.001 | 27.315 | <0.001 | 0.151 (0.068–0.337) |
| WBC count>30G/L | 0.066 | 3.368 | >0.1 | |
| Age> | 0.001 | 11.613 | >0.1 | |
| 0.046 | 3.965 | >0.1 | ||
| 0.038 | 4.293 | >0.1 | ||
| 0.157 | 1.999 | >0.1 | ||
| 0.007 | 7.245 | 0.022 | 0.360 (0.150–0.865) | |
| HSCT | <0.001 | 28.360 | <0.001 | 0.191 (0.090–0.406) |
| WBC count>30G/L | 0.404 | 0.697 | >0.1 | |
Abbreviations: P of the analysis is the p value of the Log rank test. HR is the value of the hazard ratio. 95% CI is the 95% confident interval of the hazard ratio.WBC, white blood cell count. HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Clinical features of 5 patients with concurrent FLT3-ITD, NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations
| Clinical features | No. of Samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-2081 | D-2959 | D-2978 | D-3128 | D-3009 | |
| Age (y) | 73 | 61 | 43 | 56 | 66 |
| Sex | male | female | female | female | female |
| Diagnosis | M4 | M5 | M4 | M4 | M5 |
| WBC at diagnosis (×109/L) | 129.21 | 170 | 332.77 | 132.39 | 70 |
| BM percentage (%) | 80.40 | 68.40 | 88.40 | 48 | 85 |
| Immunophenotype | |||||
| CD33 | + | + | + | + | + |
| CD13 | + | + | + | + | + |
| MPO | - | - | + | + | + |
| CD3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| CD34 | - | - | + | + | - |
| CD56 | + | + | - | - | - |
| CD64 | - | + | + | + | + |
| CD14 | - | + | + | - | - |
| CD19 | - | - | - | - | - |
| R882H | R882C | R882P | R882H | A910V | |
| TCTG | TCTG | TCTG | TCTG | TGCA | |
| Response evaluation | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Survival time | 3.4 m | 3 m | 2 d | 1 w | 3.4 m |
Clinical features of 5 patients with concurrent NPM1 and IDH1/2 without FLT3-ITD
| Clinical features | No. of Samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-2842 | D-2848 | D-2857 | D-2862 | D-2954 | |
| Age (y) | 53 | 36 | 50 | 47 | 54 |
| Sex | female | female | male | female | male |
| Diagnosis | M5 | M2 | M4 | M4 | AML |
| Diagnosis time | 2011.8.15 | 2012.10.8 | 2012.7.4 | 2013.1.17 | 2010.9.20 |
| WBC at diagnosis(×109/L) | 18.01 | 4.39 | 14.07 | 1.35 | 49.4 |
| BM percentage (%) | 84.2 | 64.4 | 53.6 | 92.8 | 84 |
| Immunophenotype | |||||
| CD33 | + | + | + | + | + |
| CD13 | + | + | + | - | + |
| MPO | + | + | + | + | + |
| CD3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| CD34 | + | - | - | - | + |
| CD56 | + | - | + | - | - |
| Response evaluation | CR | CR | CR | CR | Unevaluated |