| Literature DB >> 28678809 |
Runxia Gu1, Hui Wei1, Ying Wang1, Dong Lin1, Bingcheng Liu1, Chunlin Zhou1, Kaiqi Liu1, Benfa Gong1, Shuning Wei1, Guangji Zhang1, Xiaoyuan Gong1, Yuntao Liu1, Yan Li1, Xingli Zhao1, Shaowei Qiu1, Huijun Wang2, Min Wang3, Yingchang Mi3, Jianxiang Wang3.
Abstract
Hematopoietic recovery is considered to be associated with the number of multipotent hematopoietic stem cells in the bone marrow, as observed in functional assays involving stem cell transplantation. However, there is little evidence related to hematopoietic recovery in non-transplantation settings, which is accomplished by endogenous hematopoietic cells. A recent study suggested that progenitors are the main contributors during this steady-state hematopoiesis, which differs from exogenous transplantation. We hypothesized that endogenous progenitor support post-chemotherapy hematopoietic recovery. To investigate the potential impact of these progenitor cell percentage on hematopoietic recovery, we retrospectively analyzed the percentage of CD34+CD38+CD117+HLA-DR+CD13+CD33+ cells (P cells) and hematopoietic recovery in 223 newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients during two courses of consolidation chemotherapy after complete remission. We found that a lower P cell percentage was significantly associated with prolonged neutropenia recovery time after the first and second courses of consolidation chemotherapy (p = 0.001; p = 0.045, respectively). We also observed similar results with regard to platelet recovery time after the first course of consolidation chemotherapy (p = 0.000). Univariate analysis showed that P cell percentage and consolidation chemotherapy regimens, and not gender, age, induction chemotherapy regimens, infection grade, WHO classification and NCCN risk category, were associated with neutrophil recovery after chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that P cell percentage is an independent factor affecting neutrophil recovery capacity for both the first and second courses (p = 0.008; p = 0.032, respectively). Our results indicate that CD34+CD38+CD117+HLA-DR+CD13+CD33+ cells before each course of chemotherapy is independently associated with chemotherapy-related hematopoietic reconstitution capacity. These findings may help modify future chemotherapy regimens based on progenitor cell percentages.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28678809 PMCID: PMC5498054 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1P cell frequency declined with increasing rounds of chemotherapy.
The percentage of P cells was evaluated in patients with AML before the first and second course of consolidation chemotherapy by flowcytometry. Each symbol represents a single patient, and the data are shown as the means±SEM of the indicated number of patients.1st course: the first course of consolidation chemotherapy; 2nd course: the second course of consolidation chemotherapy.
Fig 2Patients with higher P cell percentages possess better hematopoietic recovery.
Evaluation of hematopoietic recovery in patients with different pre-chemotherapy P cell percentages (Q1groupor Q2-4 group) after consolidation chemotherapy. Times of neutropenia after the first (A) and the second (B) courses of chemotherapy were evaluated, as well as platelet (PLT) recovery time (C and D), G-CSF levels (E andF) and platelet transfusion amount (G and H). The data are shown as the means±SEM of the indicated number of patients.
Clinical characteristics of the 223 patients with AML.
| Consolidation one | Consolidation two | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 Patients (n = 61) | Q2-4 Patients (n = 162) | P | Q1 Patients (n = 56) | Q2-4 Patients (n = 167) | P | |
| Median | 41 | 33 | 36 | 35 | ||
| Range | 16–54 | 15–53 | 15–52 | 15–54 | ||
| Male | 31(50.8%) | 94(58.0%) | 28(50.0%) | 97(58.1%) | ||
| Female | 30(49.2%) | 68(42.0%) | 28(50.0%) | 70(41.9%) | ||
| HAD-standard | 26(42.6%) | 94(58.0%) | 33(58.9%) | 87(52.1%) | ||
| HAD-intermediate | 35(57.4%) | 68(42.0%) | 23(41.1%) | 80(47.9%) | ||
| HDAC | 36(59.0%) | 73(45.1%) | 28(50.0%) | 81(48.5%) | ||
| IDAC | 25(41.0%) | 89(54.9%) | 28(50.0%) | 86(51.5%) | ||
| Good | 25(43.1%) | 71(44.1%) | 28(50.0%) | 68(41.7%) | ||
| Intermediate | 26(44.8%) | 62(38.5%) | 20(35.7%) | 68(41.7%) | ||
| Poor | 7(12.1%) | 28(17.4%) | 8(14.3%) | 27(16.6%) | ||
| No information | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | ||
| AML with t(8;21) (q22;q22) | 7(11.5%) | 36(22.2%) | 12(21.4%) | 31(18.6%) | ||
| AML with abnormal BM eosinophils and inv(16)(p13;q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22) | 1(1.6%) | 4(2.5%) | 0(0.0%) | 5(3.0%) | ||
| AML with 11q23 abnormalities | 2(3.3%) | 6(3.7%) | 2(3.6%) | 6(3.6%) | ||
| Other | 51(83.6%) | 116(71.6%) | 42(75.0%) | 125(74.9%) | ||
1. HDAC, high-dose cytarabine.
2. IDAC combination, intermediate-dose cytarabine combined with anthracycline.
3. NCCN AML risk Categories (2015), the patients with on information in NCCN risk category ware not included in χ2 analysis.
4. WHO AML classification (2016).
Univariate analysis for ANC recovery.
| Consolidation one | Consolidation two | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | P | 95% CI | HR | P | 95% CI | |
| P cell percentage | 1.494 | 0.010 | 1.102–2.027 | 1.398 | 0.042 | 1.013–1.928 |
| Age | 1.000 | 0.992 | 0.988–1.013 | 0.998 | 0.815 | 0.986–1.011 |
| Gender | 0.953 | 0.731 | 0.762–1.252 | 0.826 | 0.181 | 0.625–1.093 |
| Induction chemotherapy | 0.912 | 0.503 | 0.697–1.194 | 0.866 | 0.306 | 0.657–1.141 |
| Consolidation chemotherapy | 0.971 | 0.831 | 0.743–1.270 | 0.747 | 0.045 | 0.561–0.994 |
| Infection grade | 0.885 | 0.097 | 0.765–1.023 | 0.892 | 0.204 | 0.747–1.064 |
| NCCN risk categories | 0.881 | 0.168 | 0.735–1.055 | 0.981 | 0.824 | 0.824–1.165 |
| WHO classification | 0.974 | 0.653 | 0.870–1.091 | 0.985 | 0.789 | 0.881–1.101 |
Multivariate analysis for ANC recovery in consolidation one.
| Consolidation one | No. | B | SE | Wald | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P cell percentage | |||||||
| Q1 | 61 | 1 | |||||
| Q2-4 | 162 | 0.411 | 0.156 | 6.967 | 1.508 | 0.008 | 1.112–2.047 |
Multivariate analysis for ANC recovery in consolidation two.
| Consolidation two | No. | B | SE | Wald | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P cell percentage | |||||||
| Q1 | 56 | 1 | |||||
| Q2-4 | 167 | 0.354 | 0.165 | 4.623 | 1.425 | 0.032 | 1.032–1.968 |
| Consolidation chemotherapy | |||||||
| HDAC | 109 | 1 | |||||
| IDAC | 114 | -0.311 | 0.147 | 4.516 | 0.732 | 0.034 | 0.550–0.976 |
Fig 3Chemotherapy-impaired hematopoietic recovery ability.
Differences in bone marrow recovery capacity represented as time of neutropenia (A) and platelet recovery time (B) after the first and second course of chemotherapy.