| Literature DB >> 36072806 |
Giulia Pozzi1, Cecilia Carubbi1, Giuliana Gobbi1, Sara Tagliaferri1, Prisco Mirandola1, Marco Vitale1,2, Elena Masselli1,2.
Abstract
In myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPNs), bone marrow fibrosis - mainly driven by the neoplastic megakaryocytic clone - dictates a more severe disease stage with dismal prognosis and higher risk of leukemic evolution. Therefore, accurate patient allocation into different disease categories and timely identification of fibrotic transformation are mandatory for adequate treatment planning. Diagnostic strategy still mainly relies on clinical/laboratory assessment and bone marrow histopathology, which, however, requires an invasive procedure and frequently poses challenges also to expert hemopathologists. Here we tested the diagnostic accuracy of the detection, by flow cytometry, of CCR2+CD34+ cells to discriminate among MPN subtypes with different degrees of bone marrow fibrosis. We found that the detection of CCR2 on MPN CD34+ cells has a very good diagnostic accuracy for the differential diagnosis between "true" ET and prePMF (AUC 0.892, P<0.0001), and a good diagnostic accuracy for the differential diagnosis between prePMF and overtPMF (AUC 0.817, P=0.0089). Remarkably, in MPN population, the percentage of CCR2-expressing cells parallels the degree of bone marrow fibrosis. In ET/PV patients with a clinical picture suggestive for transition into spent phase, we demonstrated that only patients with confirmed secondary MF showed significantly higher levels of CCR2+CD34+ cells. Overall, flow cytometric CCR2+CD34+ cell detection can be envisioned in support of conventional bone marrow histopathology in compelling clinical scenarios, with the great advantage of being extremely rapid. For patients in follow-up, its role can be conceived as an initial patient screening for subsequent bone marrow biopsy when disease evolution is suspected.Entities:
Keywords: CCR2; biomarkers; bone marrow fibrosis; diagnosis; flow cytometry; myelofibrosis; myeloproliferative neoplasms
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072806 PMCID: PMC9444005 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.980379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Demographic, clinical, biological and histopathological characteristic of MPN patients included in the study.
| ET(N. 24) | prePMF(N. 17) | overtPMF(N. 9) | sMF(N. 6) | ET/PV-F (N. 7) | MPN-u (N. 4) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (sampling) | |||||||
| mean (range), yrs | 59 (19-83) | 64 (34-83) | 69 (37-84) | 73 (57-90) | 57 (45-79) | 63 (41-74) | n.s. |
| Follow-up | |||||||
| mean (range), yrs | 1 (0-26) | 3 (0-21) | 4 (1-10) | 11 (9-22) | 10 (7-23) | 1 (0-1) | n/p |
| Male | |||||||
| N. (%) | 7 (29.2) | 8 (47.1) | 5 (55.5) | 3 (50.0) | 5 (71.4) | 1 (25.0) | n.s. |
| Hb | |||||||
| median (range), g/dL | 13 (10.8-15.0) | 12.5 (7.6-215.2) | 11 (7.1-13.3) | 12.7 (10.5-13.9) | 12.9 (10.2-16.7) | 12.7 (9.6-13.3) | P < 0.05 ET vs. overtPMF |
| WBC | |||||||
| median (range), x109/L | 7.4 (5.2-10.4) | 7.2 (4.1-13.3) | 6.8 (3.7-20.2) | 12.3 (2.5-34.2) | 10.0 (3.7-13) | 8.7 (6.2-19.8) | n.s. |
| PLT | |||||||
| median (range), x109/L | 684 (416-1386) | 623 (97-1526) | 444 (380-663) | 311 (80-1915) | 616 (487-921) | 333.5 (179-683) |
|
| Spleen Ø | |||||||
| mean (range), cm | 10 (9-15) | 15 (10-18) | 14 (9-19) | 11.5 (8.2-17.5) | 15 (11-20) | 14.5 (8.6-16.5) |
|
| LDH |
| ||||||
| median (range), mU/mL, x ULN | 1.0 (0.8-5.1) | 2.1 (0.9-5.1) | 2.3 (1.4-6.3) | 1.9 (1.3-5.2) | 2.1 (1.9-2.2) | 0.8 (0.7-1.3) | |
| PB Blast % | |||||||
| median (range) | 0 (0-0) | 0 (0-4) | 1 (0-6) | 0 (0-15) | 0 (0-4) | 0 (0-2) | n.s. |
| Constitutional symptoms | |||||||
| N. (%) | 3 (12.5) | 4 (23.5) | 3 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | 3 (42.8) | 1 (25) | n.s. |
| Thrombosis/hemorrhage | |||||||
| N. (%) | 4 (16.7) | 2 (11.8) | 3 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | 1 (14.3) | 1 (25) | n.s. |
| IPSET | |||||||
| Low N. (%) | 10 (41.6) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/p |
| IPSS/DIPSS | |||||||
| Low N. (%) | n/a | 7 (41.2) | 2 (22.2) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n.s. pre vs. overtPMF |
| MY-SEC | |||||||
| Low N. (%) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1 (20.0) | n/a | n/a | n/p |
| BM fibrosis grading | |||||||
| MF-0 N. (%) | n/a | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (14.3) | 2 (50.0) |
|
| Driver Mutations | |||||||
| Tested pts | all | all | all | N. 5 | all | all |
|
| Non-Driver Mutations | |||||||
| Tested pts | N. 2 | N. 5 | N. 2 | N. 4 | N. 5 | N. 2 | n/p |
| Outcome | |||||||
| Alive | 24 (100.0) | 13 (92.6) | 5 (55.6) | 4 (66.7) | 5 (71.4) | 4 (100.0) | n.s. |
*Including one death after HSCT.
BM, bone marrow; Hb, hemoglobin, HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplant; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; IPSET, International Prognostic Score of Thrombosis for ET; IPSS/DIPSS, International Prognostic Scoring System/Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System; MY-SEC, Myelofibrosis Secondary to PV and ET-Prognostic Score; n/a, not applicable; n/p, statistical analysis not performed; n.s. non-statistically significant; PB, peripheral blood; PLT, platelet count; pts, patients; WBC, white blood cell count. (Statistical analysis was performed by χ2/Fisher exact test and Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunn’s test, as applicable).
Figure 1Diagnostic accuracy of flow cytometry evaluation of CCR2 expression on CD34+ cells in ET vs. prePMF and prePMF vs. overtPMF. (A) CCR2 expression by FCM on CD34+ cells isolated from ET (N = 24) and prePMF patients (N = 17). CCR2 expression is reported as % of CCR2+CD34+/CD34+ cells and data are showed mean ± SD (****, P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney test). (B) ROC curve of FCM analysis of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells in ET and prePMF patients. (C) Summary table reporting: Area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidential interval (95% CI), P value (P), cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). (D) CCR2 expression by FCM on CD34+ cells isolated from prePMF (N = 17) and overtPMF patients (N = 9). CCR2 expression is reported as % of CCR2+CD34+/CD34+ cells and data are showed mean ± SD Mann-Whitney test). (E) ROC curve of FCM analysis of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells in prePMF and overtPMF patients. (F) Summary table reporting: Area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidential interval (95% CI), P value (P), cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
Figure 2Correlation between CCR2 expression on CD34+ cells and bone marrow fibrosis in MPNs. (A) Percentage of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells, identified as CCR2+CD34+/CD34+ cells by FCM, in ET/PV-F (N.7) and sMF (N.6) (**, P = 0.0012, Mann-Whitney Test). (B‐E) BM histopathology during PV-F and post-PV MF phases. Hematoxylin-Eosin staining (B, D) and reticulin staining (C, D) Magnification 10x. Scale bar=1mm. (F) FCM histograms showing the percentage of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells during PV with mild BM fibrosis (PV-F) phase (in green) and during post-PV MF phase (in violet). (G) Percentage of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells, identified as CCR2+CD34+/CD34+ cells by FCM, in MPN patients stratified according to the grading of bone marrow fibrosis in fibrosis in MF-0 (N. 4), MF-0-I (N. 7), MF-I (N. 17) and MF-2/3 (N.15) (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01 by Kruskal Wallis followed by Dunn’s Test).
Figure 3Correlation between CCR2 expression on CD34+ cells and the presence of circulating blasts and prognostic score in MF. (A) Heatmap generated from flow cytometric and clinical data of 31 MF patients. The first column (orange scale) represents decreasing CCR2+CD34+/CD34+ cell percentage values, the second and third column the percentage of circulating blasts (gray scale) and prognostic risk score (red scale) for each corresponding patient. (B) Percentage of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells in MF patients with circulating blast <1% and ≥1%. Data are shown as mean ± SD (*P = 0.015, Mann-Whitney Test). (C) Percentage of CCR2-expressing CD34+ cells in MF patients in the low/Int-1 and Int-2/High prognostic risk category. Data are shown as mean ± SD (*P = 0.026, Mann-Whitney Test).