| Literature DB >> 29472722 |
Maria Chiara Fontana1, Giovanni Marconi2, Jelena D Milosevic Feenstra3, Eugenio Fonzi4, Cristina Papayannidis4, Andrea Ghelli Luserna di Rorá4, Antonella Padella4, Vincenza Solli4, Eugenia Franchini4, Emanuela Ottaviani4, Anna Ferrari4, Carmen Baldazzi4, Nicoletta Testoni4, Ilaria Iacobucci4,5, Simona Soverini4, Torsten Haferlach6, Viviana Guadagnuolo4, Lukas Semerad7, Michael Doubek7, Michael Steurer8, Zdenek Racil7, Stefania Paolini4, Marco Manfrini4, Michele Cavo4, Giorgia Simonetti4, Robert Kralovics3, Giovanni Martinelli9.
Abstract
Chromothripsis is a one-step genome-shattering catastrophe resulting from disruption of one or few chromosomes in multiple fragments and consequent random rejoining and repair. This study defines incidence of chromothripsis in 395 newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients from three institutions, its impact on survival and its genomic background. SNP 6.0 or CytoscanHD Array (Affymetrix®) were performed on all samples. We detected chromothripsis with a custom algorithm in 26/395 patients. Patients harboring chromothripsis had higher age (p = 0.002), ELN high risk (HR) (p < 0.001), lower white blood cell (WBC) count (p = 0.040), TP53 loss, and/or mutations (p < 0.001) while FLT3 (p = 0.025), and NPM1 (p = 0.032) mutations were mutually exclusive with chromothripsis. Chromothripsis-positive patients showed a worse overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001) compared with HR patients (p = 0.011) and a poor prognosis in a COX-HR optimal regression model. Chromothripsis presented the hallmarks of chromosome instability [i.e., TP53 alteration, 5q deletion, higher mean of copy number alteration (CNA), complex karyotype, alterations in DNA repair, and cell cycle] and focal deletions on chromosomes 4, 7, 12, 16, and 17. CBA. FISH showed that chromothripsis is associated with marker, derivative, and ring chromosomes. In conclusion, chromothripsis frequently occurs in AML (6.6%) and influences patient prognosis and disease biology.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29472722 PMCID: PMC6035145 DOI: 10.1038/s41375-018-0035-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Leukemia ISSN: 0887-6924 Impact factor: 11.528
Clinical and molecular characteristics of the patients enrolled in this study (N = 395)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Age | Median 59.35 (range, 16–92) |
| Sex | 185/395 patients were female (46.8%) |
| 210/395 patients were male (53.2%) | |
| De novo AML | 307/372 patients (82.5%) |
| AML secondary to myelodysplastic syndrome | 43/372 patients (11.6%) |
| AML secondary to other myeloid neoplasms | 4/372 patients (1.1%) |
| Therapy-related AML | 18/372 patients (4.8%) |
| WBC (mean) | 28.140/mm3 (100–171.00/mm3) |
| WBC count greater than 30,000/mm3 | 46/154 patients (29.9%) |
| WBC count greater than 100,000/mm3 | 12/154 patients (7.8%) |
| European LeukemiaNet (ELN) low risk [ | 35/352 patients (8.9%) |
| European LeukemiaNet (ELN) intermediate 1 risk [ | 100/352 patients (28.4%) |
| European LeukemiaNet (ELN) intermediate 2 risk [ | 80/352 patients (22.7%) |
| European LeukemiaNet (ELN) high risk [ | 137/352 patients (38.9%) |
| Chemotherapy in induction | 251/308 patients (81.5%) |
| Gemtuzumab Ozagomicin was added | 42/251 patients (16.7%) |
| Complete remission | 153/251 patients (60.9%) |
| Hematopoietic stem cell transplant | 85/283 patients (30.0%) |
| Loss or a mutation of TP53 at diagnosis | 63/395 patients (15.9%) |
| Loss | 29/395 patients (7.3%) |
| Mutation | 53/324 patients (16.4%) |
| Internal tandem duplication in | 42/298 patients (14.1%) |
| Tyrosine kinase domain mutation in | 18/298 patients (6.0%) |
| Mutations in | 50/286 patients (17.5%) |
| Mutations in | 4/121 patients (3.3%) |
| Mutations in | 11/135 patients (8.3%) |
| Mutations in | 7/38 patients (19.4%) |
| Mutations in | 5/106 patients (4.7%) |
| Mutations in | 11/87 patients (12.6%) |
| Mutations in | 2/91 patients (2.2%) |
| Mutations in NRAS gene | 10/95 patients (10.5%) |
Correlation of chromothripsis with clinical data in 395 AML patients
| Parameters | Patient with chromothripsis | Patient without chromothripsis | Test | P | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis (median, years) | 67 (range, 58–85) | 60 (range, 16–92) | Median test | 0.002 | ** |
| WBC count at diagnosis (mean) | 6342/mm3 (range, 1420–26,700) | 30.059/mm3 (range, 100–171.000) | Mann– Whitney | 0.040 | * |
| ELN risk [ | 26/26 patients (100%) HR | 35/326 patients (10.7%) LR; 100/326 patients (31.2%) INT-1; 20/326 patients (24.5%) INT-2; 111/326 patients (34.0%) HR |
| <0.001 | *** |
| Median absolute pairwise difference (MAPD) | 0.19 | 0.28 | Median test | 0.270 | ns |
| 8.400 (range, 20–120.111) | 9.200 (range, 6–140.131) | Median test | 1.000 | ns | |
| 0/21 patients (0%) with | 43/277 patients (15.5%) |
| 0.025 | * | |
| 9/26 patients (34.5%) | 25/344 patients (6.8%) | Fisher’s exact test | <0.001 | *** | |
| 22/24 patients (84.6 %) | 31/300 patients (10.3%) | Fisher’s exact test | <0.001 | *** | |
| Secondary AML (every neoplasm) | 6/23 patients (26.1%) | 59/349 patients (16.9%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.196 | ns |
| 0/21 patients (0%) | 50/263 patients (19%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.032 | * | |
| 0/7 patients (0%) | 4/109 patients (3.5%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.784 | ns | |
| 0/9 patients (0%) | 10/125 patients (8.0%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.486 | ns | |
| 1/5 patients (20%) | 6/31 patients (19.4%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.685 | ns | |
| 0/4 patients (0%) | 5/102 patients (1.4%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.822 | ns | |
| 1/3 patients (33.3%) | 10/84 patients (11.9%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.337 | ns | |
| 0/6 patients (0%) | 10/89 patients (11.2%) | Fisher’s exact test | 0.503 | ns |
mut mutated, TKD tyrosine kinase domain, ITD internal tandem duplication
Induction therapies in patients with and without chromothripsis
| Induction therapy | Chromothripsis | |
|---|---|---|
| No (288) | Yes (20) | |
| Chemotherapy—n. | 241 | 10 |
| Hypomethylating agents—n. | 23 | 4 |
| Best supportive therapy—n. | 24 | 6 |
Fig. 1Association between chromothripsis and OS in AML. OS in patients with (green line) and without chromothripsis (blue line): a overall cohort; b survival censored at HSCT; c patients with ELN [37] HR features; d patients with ELN [37] HR features censoring survival at HSCT; e patients treated with intensive chemotherapy with ELN 2017h features; f patients treated with intensive chemotherapy with ELN [37] HR features censoring survival at HSCT
Fig. 2COX-HR model. COX-HR model in patients’ set considering (a) forest plot of risk factors in COX-HR optimal model (b) in COX-HR model, difference in OS (OS) representing population with (green line) and without (blue line) chromothripsis
Fig. 3Representation of two chromosomes affected by chromothripsis in different patients, plotted with Rawcopy v. 1.0. a Chromosome 17q with 36 switches and 2–3 changes in CN (involving also homozygous gains). b Chromosome 12p with 28 switches and 2–3 changes in CN (involving also homozygous losses)
Fig. 4CIRCOS plot representing the overall CNA and genes altered in the two groups (chromothripsis-positive patients vs. chromothripsis-negative patients). a External circular level: genomic landscape in CNA per group of patients (external line represents chromothripsis-positive patients, internal line represents chromothripsis-negative patients). Green lines represent amplifications, red lines represent deletions. b Internal list of selected genes (basing on Fisher's exact test and Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology) deleted in heterozygosis and/or homozygosis with relative frequency in CNA displayed with histograms: chromothripsis-positive patients (external level) and chromothripsis-negative patients (internal level)
Fig. 5Karyotype analysis in AML patients harboring chromothripsis. FISH analysis with a MYC breakapart probe showing five fusion signals of MYC localized on normal chromosome 8 and on three different marker chromosomes in patient with chromothripsis of chromosome 8. b KMT2A (MLL) breakapart probe showing four copies of KMT2A (four fusion signals) localized on the marker chromosome resulted from chromothripsis of chromosome 11. c With whole chromosome paint probe for chromosome 12 marked in blue revealing part of chromosome 12 on the marker chromosome and on the derivative chromosome 3 from translocation t (3;12). d Showing deletion of TP53 gene (red signal) in the case with chromothripsis of chromosome 17 annotated as ring chromosome by CBA