Phenotype in combination with genotype improves outcome prediction in acute myeloid leukemia: a report from Children's Oncology Group protocol AAML0531

Andrew P Voigt, Lisa Eidenschink Brodersen, Todd A Alonzo, Robert B Gerbing, Andrew J Menssen, Elisabeth R Wilson, Samir Kahwash, Susana C Raimondi, Betsy A Hirsch, Alan S Gamis, Soheil Meshinchi, Denise A Wells, Michael R Loken, Andrew P Voigt, Lisa Eidenschink Brodersen, Todd A Alonzo, Robert B Gerbing, Andrew J Menssen, Elisabeth R Wilson, Samir Kahwash, Susana C Raimondi, Betsy A Hirsch, Alan S Gamis, Soheil Meshinchi, Denise A Wells, Michael R Loken

Abstract

Diagnostic biomarkers can be used to determine relapse risk in acute myeloid leukemia, and certain genetic aberrancies have prognostic relevance. A diagnostic immunophenotypic expression profile, which quantifies the amounts of distinct gene products, not just their presence or absence, was established in order to improve outcome prediction for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The immunophenotypic expression profile, which defines each patient's leukemia as a location in 15-dimensional space, was generated for 769 patients enrolled in the Children's Oncology Group AAML0531 protocol. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering grouped patients with similar immunophenotypic expression profiles into eleven patient cohorts, demonstrating high associations among phenotype, genotype, morphology, and outcome. Of 95 patients with inv(16), 79% segregated in Cluster A. Of 109 patients with t(8;21), 92% segregated in Clusters A and B. Of 152 patients with 11q23 alterations, 78% segregated in Clusters D, E, F, G, or H. For both inv(16) and 11q23 abnormalities, differential phenotypic expression identified patient groups with different survival characteristics (P<0.05). Clinical outcome analysis revealed that Cluster B (predominantly t(8;21)) was associated with favorable outcome (P<0.001) and Clusters E, G, H, and K were associated with adverse outcomes (P<0.05). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that Clusters E, G, H, and K were independently associated with worse survival (P range <0.001 to 0.008). The Children's Oncology Group AAML0531 trial: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 00372593.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00372593.

Copyright© 2017 Ferrata Storti Foundation.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overview of immunophenotypic expression profiling (IEP). (A) Diagnostic bone marrow specimens were acquired from each patient enrolled in the COG protocol AAML0531. (B) Then, 200 μL of bone marrow was added to 6 tubes containing (C) Fluorescein Isothiocyanate (FITC)-, Phycoerythrin (PE)-, Peridinin Chlorophyll Protein Complex (PerCP)-, and anti-Allophycocyanin (APC)-conjugated antibodies. (D) Flow cytometry was performed on samples in each tube, and fluorescence measurements, forward light scatter (FSC) and right-angle light scatter (SSC) characteristics were collected for 200,000 events. (E) Flow cytometry results were analyzed by an expert, and leukemic populations were identified by CD45 vs. SSC gating. (F) For cells identified in the leukemia gate, the mean intensity for each parameter (black dot) was computed. Mean fluorescence intensity was utilized as an unaltered quantification of signal. In addition, the coefficient of variation (CV) of CD34 was computed as a metric to assess cellular maturation. (G) Collectively, these 15 quantitative intensities constituted the IEP for each patient.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Hierarchical clustering of IEPs. (A) A dendrogram was generated by unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the 769 IEPs. Eleven phenotypic clusters (A–K), selected by minimizing within-cluster variation and maximizing between-cluster variation, were identified for outcome analysis. (B) The IEP of each patient is presented in the form of a heatmap. (C) The morphologic, karyotypic, and mutational profiles of each patient were compared to the IEPs. (D) Genotypic (sub)clusters with associations among IEPs and morphologic, karyotypic, and/or mutational abnormalities were identified for further analysis. (E) Key denoting intensity of the surface gene product expression to color scale and mutational and morphologic classifications. Somatic mutations are denoted in red and those for wild-type patients are denoted in gray. FAB classifications are indicated by color.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Kaplan–Meier analysis of 5-year EFS of patients by phenotypic cluster. (A) Curves showing differences in EFS for patients in the 11 IEP clusters. (B) Curves showing phenotypic clusters in which the 5-year EFS for patients was significantly different (P<0.05) from that of patients in other clusters. Although patients in Clusters E and F had identical EFS, Cluster F EFS was not statistically significant due to low sample size.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Kaplan–Meier analysis of the differences in 5-year EFS among patients with identical phenotypes in different genotypic subclusters. (A) Patients with inv(16) in Subcluster A-v (green) had a significantly better 5-year EFS than those with inv(16) in Subcluster A-ii (light purple) (P=0.039). (B) Patients with 11q23 in Subclusters D-i, E-i, F-i, G-I, and H-i had heterogeneous 5-year EFS.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Relative influence of IEP components in each cluster. A boosted decision tree model was trained to identify patients in each cluster versus all other patients. Variable importance was computed by calculating the mean decrease in the Gini index relative to the maximum decrease in the Gini index. The relative influence of the six most important IEP components were plotted for each cluster. In addition, the relative influence of each IEP component is colored in comparison to the intensity of the gene product expression on normal, uncommitted progenitor cells for pediatric patients. For example, a blue-colored bar indicates that the average intensity of a surface gene product within a cluster is lower than the average intensity of that same surface gene product in normal pediatric patients. The combination of most influential IEP components provides insight regarding the multidimensional pattern of surface gene products that are expressed within each cluster. Of note, surface gene products need not be aberrantly expressed to have a high relative influence.

References

    1. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, et al. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009;114(5):937–951.
    1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Clinical flow cytometric analysis of neoplas tic hematolymphoid cells; approved guideline—Second edition. Wayne, PA: US Food and Drug Administration; 2008. FDA publication no. 7-150.
    1. Loken MR, Voigt AP, Eidenschink Brodersen L, et al. Consistent gene product expression #2: antigen intensities on bone marrow cells are invariant between individuals. Cytometry A. 2016;89(11):987–996.
    1. Loken MR, Voigt AP, Eidenschink Brodersen L, Fritschle W, Menssen AJ, Wells DA. Consistent quantitative gene product expression: #3. Invariance with age. Cytometry A. 2016;89(11):997–1000.
    1. Loken MR. Residual disease in AML, a target that can move in more than one direction [editorial]. Cytometry B. 2014; 86(1):15–17.
    1. Eidenschink Brodersen L, Alonzo TA, Menssen AJ, et al. A recurrent immunophenotype at diagnosis independently identifies high-risk pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: a report from Children’s Oncology Group. Leukemia. 2016; 119(10):2077–2080.
    1. Loken MR, Alonzo TA, Pardo L, et al. Residual disease detected by multidimensional flow cytometry signifies high relapse risk in patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a report from Children’s Oncology Group. Blood. 2012;120(8):1581–8.
    1. Gamis AS, Alonzo TA, Meshinchi S, et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in children and adolescents with de novo acute myeloid leukemia improves event-free survival by reducing relapse risk: Results from the randomized phase III Children’s Oncology Group trial AAML0531. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(27):3021–3032.
    1. Ketchen DJ, Shook CL. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strat. Mgmt. J. 1996;17(6):441–458.
    1. Tibshirani R, James G, Witten D, Hastie T. An introduction to statistical learning- with applications in R. New York, NY: Springer, 2013.
    1. Ho PA, Alonzo TA, Gerbing RB, et al. Prevalence and prognostic implications of CEBPA mutations in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Blood. 2009;113(26):6558–6566.
    1. Meshinchi S, Alonzo TA, Stirewalt DL, et al. Clinical implications of FLT3 mutations in pediatric AML. Blood. 2006; 108(12):3654–3661.
    1. Ho PA, Zeng R, Alonzo TA, et al. Prevalence and prognostic implications of WT1 mutations in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Blood. 2010;116(5):702–710.
    1. Brown P, McIntyre E, Rau R, et al. The incidence and clinical significance of nucleophosmin mutations in childhood AML. Blood. 2007;110(3):979–985.
    1. Vardiman JW, Harris NL, Brunning RD. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the myeloid neoplasms. Blood. 2002;100(7):2292–2302.
    1. Civin CI, Loken MR. Cell surface antigens on human marrow cells: Dissection of hematopoietic development using monoclonal antibodies and multiparameter flow cytometry. Int J Cell Cloning. 1987;5(4):1–6.
    1. Loken MR, Terstappen LWMM, Civin CI, Fackler MJ. Flow cytometric characterization of erythroid, lymphoid and mono-myeloid lineages in normal human bone marrow. In: Laerum OD, Bjerksnes R, eds. Flow Cytometry in Hematology. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1992:31–42.
    1. Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposals for the classification of the acute leukaemias. French-American-British (FAB) Co-operative Group. Br J Haematol. 1976;33(4):451–458.
    1. Gruber TA, Larsen Gedman A, Zhang J, et al. An Inv(16)(p13.3q24.3)-encoded CBFA2T3-GLIS2 fusion protein defines an aggressive subtype of pediatric acute megakaryoblastic leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2012;22(5):687–697.
    1. Masetti R, Pigazzi M, Togni M, et al. CBFA2T3-GLIS2 fusion transcript is a novel common feature in pediatric, cytogenetically normal AML, not restricted to FAB M7 subtype. Blood. 2013;121(17):3469–3472.
    1. Balgobind BV, Raimondi SC, Harbott J, et al. Novel prognostic subgroups in childhood 11q23/MLL-rearranged acute myeloid leukemia: results of an international retrospective study. Blood. 2009; 114(12):2489–2496.
    1. Pigazzi M, Masetti R, Bresolin S, et al. MLL partner genes drive distinct gene expression profiles and genomic alterations in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: an AIEOP study. Leukemia. 2011;25:560–563.
    1. Lin LI, Chen CY, Lin DT, et al. Characterization of CEBPA mutations in AML: most patients with CEBPA mutations have biallelic mutations and show a distinct immunophenotype of the leukemic cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(4):1372–1379.
    1. Hurwitz CA, Raimondi SC, Head D, et al. Distinctive Immunophenotypic features of t(8;21)(q22;22) acute myeloblastic leukemia in children. Blood. 1992;80(12):3182–3188.
    1. Paietta E, Andersen J, Gallagher R, et al. The immunophenotype of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL): an ECOG study. Leukemia. 1994;8(7):1108–1112.
    1. Adriaansen HJ, te Boekhorst PAW, Hagemeijer AM, van der Schoot CE, Delwel HR, van Dongen JJ. Acute myeloid leukemia M4 with bone marrow eosinophilia (M4Eo) and inv(16)(p13q22) exhibits a specific immunophenotype with CD2 expression. Blood. 1993;81(11):3043–3051.
    1. Baer MR, Stewart CC, Lawrence D, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia with 11q23 translocations: myelomonocytic immunophenotype by multiparameter flow cytometry. Leukemia. 1998; 12(3):317–325.
    1. Ossenkoppele GJ, van de Loosdrecht AA, Schuurhuis GJ. Review of the relevance of aberrant antigen expression by flow cytometry in myeloid neoplasms. Br J Haematol. 2011;153(4):421–436.
    1. Zeijlemaker W, Kelder A, Wouters R, et al. Absence of leukaemic CD34+ cells in acute myeloid leukaemia is of high prognostic value: a longstanding controversy deciphered. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(2):227–238.
    1. Chen CY, Chou WC, Tsay W, et al. Hierarchical cluster analysis of immunophenotype classify AML patients with NPM1 gene mutation into two groups with distinct prognosis. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:107.
    1. Hulkkonen J, Vilpo L, Hurme M, Vilpo J. Surface antigen expression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: clustering analysis, interrelationships and effects of chromosomal abnormalities. Leukemia. 2002;16(2): 178–85.
    1. Zangrando A, Luchini A, Buldini B, et al. Immunophenotype signature as a tool to define prognostic subgroups in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2006; 20(5):888–891.
    1. Terstappen LW, Safford M, Konemann S, et al. Flow cytometric characterization of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Part II. Phenotypic heterogeneity at diagnosis. Leukemia. 1991;5(9):757–767.
    1. Valk PJM, Verhaak RGW, Beijen MA, Erpelinck CAJ, Barjesteh van Waaliwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani S, Boer JM. Prognostically useful gene-expression profiles in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(6):1617–1628.
    1. Bullinger L, Döhner K, Blair E, Fröhling S, Schlenk RF, Tibshirani R. Use of gene-expression profiling to identify prognostic subclasses in adult acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(16):1605–1616.
    1. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, Gaidzik VI, Paschka P, Roberts ND. Genomic classification and prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2209–2221.
    1. Shimada A, Taki T, Tabuchi K, et al. KIT mutations, and not FLIT3 internal tandem duplication, are strong associated with a poor prognosis in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21): a study of the Japanese Childhood AML Cooperative study group. Blood. 2006;107(5):1806–1809.
    1. Manara E, Bisio V, Masetti R, et al. Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia in pediatric patients enrolled in the AIEOP AML 2002/1 trial: screening and prognostic impact of c-KIT mutations. Leukemia. 2014;28:1132–1134.
    1. Chen W, Xie H, Wang H, et al. Prognostic significance of KIT mutatins in core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0146614.
    1. Pollard JA, Alono TA, Gerbing RB, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of KIT mutations in pediatric core binding factor AML enrolled on serial pediatric cooperative trials for de novo AML. Blood. 2010;15(12):2372–2379.
    1. Klein K, Kaspers G, Harrison CJ, et al. Clinical impact of additional cytogenetic aberrations, cKIT and RAS mutations, and treatment elements in pediatric r(8;21)-AML: results from an international retrospective study by the International Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster Study group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(36):4247–4259.
    1. Grimwade D, Walker H, Oliver F, et al. The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1,612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial. The Medical Research Council Adult and Children’s Leukemia Working Parties. Blood. 1998;92(7):2322–2333.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe