| Literature DB >> 34396283 |
Marie-A Chaix1,2, Neha Parmar1, Caroline Kinnear1, Myriam Lafreniere-Roula3, Oyediran Akinrinade1, Roderick Yao1, Anastasia Miron1, Emily Lam1, Guoliang Meng4, Anne Christie1, Ashok Kumar Manickaraj5,1, Stacey Marjerrison6, Rejane Dillenburg6, Mylène Bassal7, Jane Lougheed7, Shayna Zelcer8, Herschel Rosenberg8, David Hodgson9, Leonard Sender10, Paul Kantor11, Cedric Manlhiot12, James Ellis4,5, Luc Mertens13, Paul C Nathan13, Seema Mital1,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite known clinical risk factors, predicting anthracycline cardiotoxicity remains challenging.Entities:
Keywords: AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; DOX, doxorubicin; GSEA, gene set enrichment analysis; H2AX, H2A family member X; IC50, half-maximal inhibitory concentration; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MAF, minor allele frequency; OR, odds ratio; PGP, Personal Genome Project; RF, random forest; SKAT, sequence kernel association test; SNV, single-nucleotide variant; anthracycline; cancer survivorship; cardiomyopathy; echocardiography; genomics; hiPSC-CM, human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cardiomyocyte; mRNA, messenger RNA; machine learning; risk prediction
Year: 2020 PMID: 34396283 PMCID: PMC8352204 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2020.11.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JACC CardioOncol ISSN: 2666-0873
Central IllustrationAn Integrated Precision Approach to Predict Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity
Whole-exome sequencing data from 289 pediatric cancer survivors with extreme phenotypes identified a higher burden of rare variants in control patients compared to case patients in 31 biologically relevant genes. The top-ranked genes were functionally evaluated in human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) and variant enrichment was confirmed in a replication cohort. Targeted pathway inhibitors were more effective at reducing anthracycline-induced injury than dexrazoxane. Using random forest, clinical and genetic predictors were integrated into a prediction model for anthracycline cardiotoxicity.
Figure 1Study Cohort and CONSORT Diagram
(A) Study cohort: Scatterplot showing the distribution of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) against anthracycline cumulative dose, with control patients in blue (n = 121), case patients in red (n = 238), and the rest in gray (n = 357). (B) Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram: selection of case and control patients for exome sequencing in the discovery cohort. ∗Participants with complete data and good-quality DNA. PCS2 = Preventing Cardiac Sequelae in Pediatric Cancer Survivors.
Clinical Characteristics of the Study Cohort (N = 289)
| Control Patients (n = 106) | Case Patients (n = 183) | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 57 (53.8) | 92 (50.3) | 0.566 |
| Age at start of anthracycline, yrs | 6.0 (2.0–10.0) | 4.0 (2.0–7.0) | 0.018 |
| Cumulative anthracycline dose in doxorubicin equivalent dose, mg/m2 | 371 ± 115 | 128 ± 59 | <0.001 |
| Use of dexrazoxane | 13 (12.6) | 2 (1.1) | <0.001 |
| Radiation therapy involving the heart | 44 (41.5) | 64 (35.0) | 0.268 |
| Cancer diagnosis | <0.001 | ||
| Leukemia (AML, ALL) | 40 (37.7) | 94 (51.4) | 0.049 |
| Sarcoma (osteosarcoma, Ewing, rhabdomyosarcoma) | 28 (26.4) | 2 (1.1) | <0.001 |
| Neuroblastoma, hepatoblastoma | 18 (17.0) | 13 (7.1) | 0.009 |
| Lymphoma (NHL, HL) | 10 (9.4) | 35 (19.1) | 0.029 |
| Wilms tumor | 2 (1.9) | 23 (12.6) | 0.002 |
| LVEF at last follow-up, % | 61.3 ± 6.7 | 51.7 ± 2.8 | <0.001 |
| Time from first anthracycline dose to last follow-up echocardiogram, yrs | 8.5 (5.0–12.3) | 9.0 (6.0–12.3) | 0.854 |
| Duration of treatment, days | 373.3 ± 1,080.5 | 182.0 ± 282.5 | 0.026 |
Values are n (%), median (interquartile range), or mean ± SD.
AML = acute myeloid leukemia; ALL = acute lymphocytic leukemia; HL = Hodgkin lymphoma; LV = left ventricular; NHL = non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Figure 2Genes Associated With Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity
(A) A total of 28 genes showed differential enrichment between case and control patients by at least 2 methods (p < 0.001), and 3 additional biologically relevant genes (orange) were significant by at least 1 method. (B) Burden of rare and low-frequency single-nucleotide variants in the 31 prioritized genes was higher in control patients compared to case patients (p < 0.001). (C) Forest plot showing the estimated odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the 31 top genes in case versus control patients using Fisher exact test. Genes in bold were prioritized for functional studies.
Figure 3Pathways Associated With Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity
(A) GeneMania analysis identified 46 interacting genes, including 26 of the 31 top genes. Large circles represent significantly associated genes; small circles represent other interacting genes. Physical interaction (pink lines), coexpression (purple lines), colocalization (blue lines), shared protein domains (gray-yellow lines), genetic interaction (green lines), and predicted (orange lines). (B) Gene set enrichment analysis identified the top-ranked pathways to which the genes mapped (p < 0.001). The solid bar shows number of significant genes in each pathway (p < 0.001); the dashed bar represents the total genes.
Figure 4Effect of Anthracycline in hiPSC-CMs
(A) The 24-h DOX treatment caused a dose-dependent decrease in cell function and viability in hiPSC-CMs measured using the cell index. (B) Presto blue cell viability assay demonstrated a decrease in metabolic activity and proliferation with increasing DOX doses. The values represent the average relative fluorescence from 3 independent experiments. (C) Representative immunofluorescence images showing increased γ-H2AX staining (green) (white arrow), a DNA damage marker, in the nuclei (blue DAPI staining) of DOX-treated cells. (D) DOX treatment increased average γ-H2AX foci per nucleus compared to untreated cells. Error bars represent mean ± SD for 3 independent biological replicates. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗∗p < 0.001. CMC = combined multivariate and collapsing; DAPI = 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; DMSO = dimethyl sulfoxide; DOX = doxorubicin; H2AX = H2A family member X; hiPSC-CM = human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cardiomyocyte; μM = μmol/l.
Figure 5Effect of Targeted Gene Inhibition on DOX-Induced Cardiotoxicity in hiPSC-CMs
(A) RT-qPCR analysis of PGP17 hiPSC-CMs (3 biological replicates, each containing 3 technical replicates) treated with 0.1 μmol/L DOX demonstrated a significant increase in gene expression levels of ZNF827, ELAC2, and PI3KR2.(B) PGP17 and (C) PGP14 hiPSC-CMs were pre-treated with DMSO or an inhibitor for 24 h and then exposed to DOX for 24 h. Dose-response curves for cell index, that is, CM viability, and IC50 values for DOX with and without inhibitors are shown. Data are mean ± SD for 3 independent replicates. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01. PGP = Personal Genome Project; RT-qPCR = quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; other abbreviations as in Figure 4.
IC50 Values (95% CI) of DOX and Inhibitors in hiPSC-CMs Derived From PGP17 and PGP14 Individuals
| PGP17_11 | PGP14_26 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | p Value vs. DOX | IC50 | p Value vs. DOX | |
| Doxorubicin | 0.09 (0.04–0.16) | 0.21 (0.14–0.31) | ||
| TGX-221 | 0.71 (0.51–0.98) | 0.045 | 0.49 (0.33–0.72) | 0.043 |
| Metformin | 0.58 (0.43–0.78) | 0.017 | 0.98 (0.56–1.80) | 0.039 |
| Rapamycin | 0.26 (0.14–0.44) | 0.178 | 0.26 (0.17–0.39) | 0.164 |
| Dexrazoxane | 0.22 (0.15–0.33) | 0.077 | 0.61 (0.43–0.88) | 0.047 |
CI = confidence interval; DOX = doxorubicin; hiPSC-CMs = human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes; IC50 = half-maximal inhibitory concentration; PGP = Personal Genome Project.
Accuracy Measures for Prediction Models of Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity
| Accuracy Measure | Dataset | Clinical Model | Genetic Model | Combined Clinical and Genetic Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | Training | 0.9990 ± 0.0026 | 0.8996 ± 0.0216 | 0.9923 ± 0.0063 |
| Testing | 0.5896 ± 0.0431 | 0.7133 ± 0.042 | 0.7156 ± 0.0421 | |
| Overall | 0.7403 ± 0.0273 | 0.7819 ± 0.0262 | 0.8174 ± 0.0267 | |
| Sn | Training | 0.9980 ± 0.0053 | 0.8232 ± 0.0457 | 0.9846 ± 0.0127 |
| Testing | 0.4317 ± 0.0885 | 0.5552 ± 0.0827 | 0.5254 ± 0.0836 | |
| Overall | 0.6401 ± 0.056 | 0.6538 ± 0.054 | 0.6944 ± 0.0528 | |
| Sp | Training | 1.0000 ± 0.0004 | 0.9760 ± 0.0168 | 0.9999 ± 0.0008 |
| Testing | 0.7475 ± 0.0682 | 0.8715 ± 0.0513 | 0.9057 ± 0.047 | |
| Overall | 0.8404 ± 0.0431 | 0.9100 ± 0.035 | 0.9404 ± 0.0297 | |
| PPV | Training | 1.0000 ± 0.0005 | 0.9609 ± 0.0254 | 0.9999 ± 0.0011 |
| Testing | 0.4885 ± 0.0749 | 0.7259 ± 0.0820 | 0.7623 ± 0.0942 | |
| Overall | 0.6767 ± 0.0473 | 0.8124 ± 0.0544 | 0.8498 ± 0.0595 | |
| NPV | Training | 0.9986 ± 0.0035 | 0.8893 ± 0.0253 | 0.9896 ± 0.0084 |
| Testing | 0.7058 ± 0.0384 | 0.7684 ± 0.0376 | 0.777 ± 0.0365 | |
| Overall | 0.8135 ± 0.0243 | 0.8129 ± 0.0239 | 0.8552 ± 0.0231 | |
| MC | Training | 0.0008 ± 0.0021 | 0.0864 ± 0.0182 | 0.0063 ± 0.0051 |
| Testing | 0.3652 ± 0.0423 | 0.2465 ± 0.0385 | 0.2297 ± 0.0373 | |
| Overall | 0.2311 ± 0.0268 | 0.1876 ± 0.0241 | 0.1475 ± 0.0237 | |
| FPR | Training | 0.0000 ± 0.0002 | 0.0141 ± 0.0098 | 0.0000 ± 0.0005 |
| Testing | 0.1632 ± 0.0457 | 0.0807 ± 0.0325 | 0.0610 ± 0.0308 | |
| Overall | 0.1032 ± 0.0289 | 0.0562 ± 0.0220 | 0.0386 ± 0.0195 | |
| FNR | Training | 0.0008 ± 0.0021 | 0.0723 ± 0.0185 | 0.0063 ± 0.0051 |
| Testing | 0.2020 ± 0.0365 | 0.1658 ± 0.0333 | 0.1687 ± 0.0334 | |
| Overall | 0.1279 ± 0.0231 | 0.1314 ± 0.0215 | 0.1089 ± 0.0211 |
Values are mean ± SD.
AUC = area under the curve; FNR = false negative rate; FPR = false positive rate; MC = misclassification; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; Sn = sensitivity; Sp = specificity.
Figure 6Accuracy Measures of Prediction Models Using Random Forest
Boxplots representing the accuracy measures for the overall dataset, the testing set, and the training set for the (A) clinical model, (B) genetic model, (C) combined model, and (D) receiver operator characteristic AUC for model-derived prediction of anthracycline cardiotoxicity. Clinical model AUC: 0.59 (black), genetic model AUC: 0.71 (blue), combined model AUC: 0.72 (red). AUC = area under the curve; FNR = false negative rate; FPR = false positive rate; MC = misclassification; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; Sens = sensitivity; Sn = sensitivity; Sp = specificity; Spec = specificity.