| Literature DB >> 30344950 |
Maurizio Cavallari1, Francesco Cavazzini1, Antonio Cuneo1, Gian Matteo Rigolin1, Antonella Bardi1, Eleonora Volta1, Aurora Melandri1, Elisa Tammiso1, Elena Saccenti1, Enrico Lista1, Francesca Maria Quaglia1, Antonio Urso1, Michele Laudisi1, Elisa Menotti1, Luca Formigaro1, Melissa Dabusti1, Maria Ciccone1, Paolo Tomasi1, Massimo Negrini2.
Abstract
The complex karyotype (CK) is an established negative prognostic marker in a number of haematological malignancies. After the introduction of effective mitogens, a growing body of evidence has suggested that the presence of 3 or more aberrations by conventional banding analysis (CBA) is associated with an unfavorable outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Thus, the importance of CBA was recognized by the 2018 guidelines of the International Workshop on CLL, which proposed the introduction of CBA in clinical trials to validate the value of karyotype aberrations. Indeed, a number of observational studies showed that cytogenetic aberrations and, particularly, the CK may have a negative independent impact on objective outcome measures (i.e. time to first treatment, progression free survival, time to chemorefractoriness and overall survival) both in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy and, possibly, in patients receiving novel mechanism-based treatment. Here, we set out to present the scientific evidence supporting the significance of CK as a prognostic marker in CLL and to discuss the biological basis showing that the CK is a consequence of genomic instability.Entities:
Keywords: Richter transformation; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; complex karyotype; prognosis; target therapy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30344950 PMCID: PMC6188145 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.26146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1(A) Frequency of Gene Mutation by NGS in patient with or without CK reported by Rigolin et al [26] (B) Frequency of Gene Mutation by NGS in patient with or without CK reported by Herling et al [24]. *p<0.05
Figure 2Genetic background favouring the development of complex karyotype
Figure 3Frequency of TP53 disruption (A), ATM deletion (B), and unmutated IGHV gene configuration (C) according to the presence or absence of CK. The number of cases are reported aside each bar. NS: not significant; UM-IGHV: unmutated IGHV.
Impact of complex karyotype on OS
| Tot. pts | CK | Treatment | Disease status | Median OS | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK yes | CK no | HR (IC 95%) | P | HR (IC 95%) | P | |||||
| [ | 109 | NA | various | TN and pretreated | 107 | 346 | 15.44* | <0.001 | - | Ø |
| [ | 482 | 71/399 | NA | TN | 81.1% at 5y | 86-94.4% | 3.830 | 0.001 | - | Ø |
| [ | 284 | 22/182 | FCR | R/R | 26 | 10.5 m. -78 m. | 1.9 | 0.015 | ||
| [ | 80 | 8/67 | CFAR | R/R | NA | NA | 2.0 | 0.022 | ||
| [ | 38 | 16/38 | NA | TN | 56 | 144 | - | - | ||
| [ | LC 166 | 20/145 (13.8%) | various | TN | NA | NA | 2.701 | <0.001 | 4.856 | <0.0001 |
| [ | 110 | 38/110 | FCR | TN | 72.4% at 5 y | 85.8% at 5y | 5.16 | 0.07 | ||
| [ | 161 | 30/154 | Clb/Clb-R/Clb-G | TN | NA | NA | 2.9 (1.5-5.4)° | 0.001° | 2.682 | 0.004 |
| [ | 1045 | 99/1043 | various | TN | 79 | NR | 1.66 | 0.027 | ||
| [ | 335 | 41/287 | various | TN | 70 | 135 | 3.176 (1.882-5.359) | <0.001 | 3.572 | 0.011 |
| [ | 186 | 37/186 | Lenalidomide-R | R/R | 23 | 62.8 | - | - | 2.08 | 0.015 |
TN=treatment naïve; R/R= relapsed/refractory; OS=overall survival; CK=complex karyotype; NA=not available; Clb=chlorambucil; FCR=Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide, Rituximab; G=Obinutuzumab; R= Rituximab; O-Ofatumumab; Ø=not significant; LC: learning cohort; VC: validation cohort
*log rank; **CK or 17p aberration; °all arms; °°(Clb-R+Clb-G);
#MBL/CLL
# OS was compared in this study between patients with CK and patients without CK carrying chromosome translocations, or 1-2 aberrations or normal karyotype.
## OS in the patients without CK was reported in this study according to the aberration detected by FISH (13q-, +12, 11q-, 17p).
Impact of complex karyotype on R/R CLL patients treated with pathway inhibitors
| Therapy and patient population | Tot. pts | CK | Median OS | OS | Median PFS | PFS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK yes | CK no | HR (IC 95%) | P | CK yes | CK no | HR (IC 95%) | P | |||
| 88 | 21/56 | 25 | NR | 5.9 | 0.008 | 19 | 39 | 6.6 | 0.006 | |
| 195 | 39/153 | NR | NR | 1.86 | 0.161 | NR | NR | 1.53 | 0.248 | |
| 110 | 26/65 | NR | NR | 1.78 | 0.230 | 20.9 | 19.4 | 1.18 | 0.630 | |
| 67 | 16/38 | - | - | - | - | 16 | NR | 6.6 | 0.005 | |
R/R relapsed/refractory; OS = overall survival; TFT = time to first treatment; EFS = event free survival; PFS = progression free survival; NR = not reached; *Event Free Surival (EFS); **Time to progression (TTP).