| Literature DB >> 35814434 |
Eva Ondroušková1, Michaela Bohúnová1, Kristýna Závacká1,2, Patrik Čech1, Petra Šmuhařová1, Miroslav Boudný1,2, Martina Oršulová1, Anna Panovská1, Lenka Radová2, Michael Doubek1,2,3, Karla Plevová1,2,3, Marie Jarošová1.
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with cytogenetics findings, such as complex karyotype and deletions of TP53 or ATM, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Additional chromosomal abnormalities further stratify patients into groups with diverse prognoses. Gain of 8q24 is one of the abnormalities considered as prognostically unfavorable. In our study, we performed a FISH analysis in an initial cohort of 303 consecutive CLL patients and determined the frequency of +8q to be 6.3 %. Our analysis confirmed the association with TP53/ATM aberrations and CK, as the frequency of +8q reached 26.7 % in an extended delTP53/ATM+CK cohort. M-FISH analysis enabled the identification of partner chromosomes where the segment of the duplicated 8q arm was localized. More detailed mapping of the gained 8q region using the M-BAND method determined the smallest amplified region 8q23-8qter. We observed significantly shorter overall survival (OS; 9.0 years in +8q-positive vs. 10.6 years in +8q-negative; p=0.02) and detected slightly higher MYC mRNA/protein levels in +8q-positive vs. +8q-negative patients.Entities:
Keywords: 8q24 gain; MYC; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; complex karyotype; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814434 PMCID: PMC9263084 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.859618
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
The characteristics of the analyzed cohort of 90 patients with CK.
| Whole dataset | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | F | 31 | 34% | 9 | 38% | 22 | 33% |
| M | 59 | 66% | 15 | 63% | 44 | 67% | |
| Subgroup | del | 50 | 56% | 7 | 29% | 43 | 65% |
| del | 28 | 31% | 11 | 46% | 17 | 26% | |
| del | 12 | 13% | 6 | 25% | 6 | 9% | |
| OS status | alive | 47 | 52% | 11 | 46% | 36 | 55% |
| dead | 43 | 48% | 13 | 54% | 30 | 45% | |
| Rai | I | 28 | 36% | 7 | 32% | 21 | 38% |
| II | 8 | 10% | 1 | 5% | 7 | 13% | |
| III | 6 | 8% | 2 | 9% | 4 | 7% | |
| IV | 13 | 17% | 6 | 27% | 7 | 13% | |
| 0 | 23 | 29% | 6 | 27% | 17 | 30% | |
| Binet | A | 44 | 56% | 13 | 57% | 31 | 56% |
| B | 15 | 19% | 2 | 9% | 13 | 24% | |
| C | 19 | 24% | 8 | 35% | 11 | 20% | |
| IGHV status | MU | 10 | 12% | 2 | 10% | 8 | 13% |
| UM | 71 | 86% | 18 | 90% | 53 | 84% | |
| UM + MU | 2 | 2% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 3% | |
| FISH del(13q) total | Y | 70 | 78% | 18 | 75% | 52 | 79% |
| N | 20 | 22% | 6 | 25% | 14 | 21% | |
| FISH del(13q) monoallelic | Y | 67 | 74% | 18 | 75% | 49 | 74% |
| N | 23 | 26% | 6 | 25% | 17 | 26% | |
| FISH del(13q) biallelic | Y | 17 | 19% | 2 | 8% | 15 | 19% |
| N | 73 | 81% | 22 | 92% | 63 | 81% | |
| FISH del | Y | 62 | 69% | 13 | 54% | 49 | 74% |
| N | 28 | 31% | 11 | 46% | 17 | 26% | |
| FISH del | Y | 40 | 44% | 17 | 71% | 23 | 35% |
| N | 50 | 56% | 7 | 29% | 43 | 65% | |
| FISH trisomy 12 | Y | 5 | 6% | 2 | 8% | 3 | 5% |
| N | 85 | 94% | 22 | 92% | 63 | 95% | |
| MU | 45 | 54% | 18 | 75% | 27 | 45% | |
| UM | 39 | 46% | 6 | 25% | 33 | 55% | |
| MU | 5 | 71% | 0 | – | 5 | 71% | |
| UM | 2 | 29% | 0 | – | 2 | 29% | |
| Complex karyotype (no of changes) | 3 or 4 | 31 | 34% | 9 | 38% | 22 | 33% |
| 5 | 27 | 30% | 14 | 58% | 13 | 20% | |
| ND | 32 | 36% | 1 | 4% | 31 | 47% | |
| pos | 24 | 27% | 24 | 100% | 0 | 0% | |
| neg | 66 | 73% | 0 | 0% | 66 | 100% | |
| No of treatment lines | median (range) | 3 (0-10) | 3 (1-10) | 3 (0-9) | |||
F, female; M, male; CK, complex karyotype; OS, overall survival; IGHV, immunoglobulin heavy chain gene; MU, mutated; UM, unmutated; ND, not determined (the exact number of changes in the CK not determined as the detailed analysis by M-FISH method was not performed), Y, yes; N, no.
Figure 1(A) Distribution of MYC gains in the groups of patients with recurrent aberrations (delATM, delTP53, del(13q), +12, or negative) determined by FISH in 303 consecutive CLL patient samples. Numbers within columns represent absolute numbers of patients. (B) Distribution of MYC gains (determined by FISH) in the groups of patients with or without CK (determined by conventional chromosome banding) in 283 consecutive CLL patient samples. Numbers within columns represent absolute numbers of patients. (C) Distribution of MYC aberrations (determined by FISH) in 90 patient samples selected for the presence of CK (determined by conventional chromosome banding) together with either delTP53 or delATM, or both (determined by FISH). Numbers within columns represent absolute numbers of patients. (D) The frequency and localization of the duplicated 8q region on individual chromosomes identified by the M-FISH method.
Figure 2(A) A representative metaphasis with three copies of the MYC gene visualized by the FISH method. The probe CLL 6q21/8q24 (MetaSystems), covering the MYC coding region 8q24 (green signals) and a control region 6q21 (orange signals), was used. (B) Representative nuclei with three copies of the MYC gene (white arrows), visualized by the FISH method using the MYC break-apart probe (ZytoVision). This probe surrounds the common break sites for MYC gene translocations. The orange-green fusion signals indicate that the break site is not in proximity to the MYC regulatory regions. (C) A representative metaphasis hybridized with the M-FISH probe 24XCyte (MetaSystems) for FISH analysis of the whole karyotype. In this metaphasis, one balanced translocation t(1;12) and two unbalanced translocations dic(16;22) and der(4)t(4;8) with 8q gain were detected. (D) Analysis of the extent of 8q gain using the M-BAND8 probe XCyte8 (MetaSystems). Normal chromosome 8 (on the left) and a derivative chromosome 8 (on the right) with the duplicated 8q13-8qter region on an 8p-arm.
Cytogenetic analysis of MYC aberrations in 24 MYC-positive patients with CK.
| Case No | Gender | del | FISH: type of | CK (no of changes) | M-FISH/M-BAND: ISCN notation of clone(s) with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | 0/88/70 | dmins | ≥5 | – | |
| M | 0/64/39 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | – | |
| F | 0/97/13 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 46,XX,der(3)t(3;8)(q?27; | |
| M | 0/87/76 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 44,XY,?inv(3)(p21.2q?27),der(3)t(3;14)(p?21.3);?,del(6)(p21.1p?24),-8,der(10)t(3;10)(?;q?24.3),der(14)t(10;14)(q?;q)?ins(14;17)(q?23);?, der(15)t(8;15)( | |
| M | 0/91/89 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 45,XY,der(6)t(6;17)(q23.1;q?21.3),dic(14;18)(p?11.1;p?11.2),der(20)t(8;20)( | |
| M | 0/86/74 | 3xMYC/4xMYC | 3-4 | 45,XY,dic(13;17)(p?13;p?11.2),der(22)t(8;22)( | |
| F | 0/13/15 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 76-87,XXXX,-5,-6,der(6)t(6;8)(p?21; | |
| F | 0/57/53 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 40,XX,-4,-5,der(6),-7,-8,der(12)t(X;12),-15,?i(17q),dic(19;22),der(20)(20pter->?q12::8q24.3->8 | |
| M | 0/56/12 | 3xMYC/4xMYC | ≥5 | – | |
| F | 0/74/81 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 46,XX,der(12)t(8;12)( | |
| M | 0/75/27 | translocation | 3-4 | 46,XY,t(8;22)( | |
| M | 17/78/13 | 4xMYC | ≥5 | 46,XY,der(11)t(8;11)( | |
| M | 89/16/67 | 3xMYC/4xMYC/translocation | ≥5 | 46,XY,del(1)(q?25.1),t(5;10)(q?22;q21.1),t(8;9)( | |
| M | 89/30/46 | 3xMYC/4xMYC | ≥5 | – | |
| F | 42/48/27 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | – | |
| M | 87/87/56 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 46,XY,der(5)t(5;8)(p14; | |
| M | 4/20/46 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 46,XY,?del(1)(?q24q32.2),der(3)t(3;10)(?p25);?,der(15)t(8;15)(?;p?13)[5]/45,Y,der(X)t(X;8)(q?23; | |
| M | 74/0/84 | 3xMYC/4xMYC/translocation | 3-4 | 46,XY,del(1)(?q21),der(4)t(4;8)(p?14; | |
| M | 73/0/20 | 3xMYC | ND | – | |
| M | 95/0/90 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 46,XY,der(4)(4qter->q16::4p14->q12::8 | |
| F | 96/0/85 | 3xMYC | 3-4 | 46,XX,t(5;11)(q31.3;q13.3),t(6;10)(p21.1;p11.2),der(22)t(8;22)( | |
| F | 96/0/94 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 45,XX,der(9)t(8;9)( | |
| M | 92/0/67 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 46,XY,der(4)t(4;8)(p?14; | |
| F | 97/0/41 | 3xMYC | ≥5 | 45,XX,t(1;12)(p33;q23),der(4)t(4;8)(q33; |
F, female; M, male; dmins, double minutes; CK, complex karyotype; M-FISH, multicolor FISH method; M-BAND, multicolor banding method. ND, not determined (the exact number of changes in the CK not determined as the detailed analysis by the M-FISH method was not performed). ISCN, International System for Human Cytogenomic Nomenclature. The position of breaks on chromosome 8 is highlighted in bold.
Figure 3The identification of the smallest duplicated region using the M-BAND method. An ideogram of chromosome 8 on the left side. A red dot indicates the position of the MYC gene. Red lines show the size of the duplicated 8q region individual patients (patient numbers under red lines; several lines in one patient indicate more than one clone with MYC gain). Red arrows delimit the smallest duplicated region.
Figure 4(A) Quantification of MYC mRNA levels using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). (B) Quantification of MYC protein levels using western blot immunodetection. Positive controls: cell lines NALM6 and MEC-1. Negative controls: patients negative in both the cytogenetic and molecular-cytogenetic analyses (n=10). +8q-positive with CK; patients with complex karyotype and MYC aberration (n=13). +8q-negative; patients with complex karyotype but without MYC aberration (n=9). The Mann-Whitney tests were applied to confirm a significant difference in gene expression between the groups. A statistically significant difference (p=0.05) is marked by an asterisk.
Figure 5(A) Kaplan–Meier curves for patients’ overall survival (OS). OS of +8q-negative patients (n=63) and +8q-positive patients (n=22) was compared. Patients after bone marrow transplantation (n=3) were excluded from the OS analysis. (B) Kaplan–Meier plots for time to first treatment (TTFT). TTFT of +8q-negative patients (n=64) and +8q-positive patients (n=24) was compared. Differences were evaluated by a logrank test. A statistically significant difference (p=0.02) is marked by an asterisk.