MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389231475 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-189827

New Pattern of Emerging Somatic Mutations in Optimal Responders Following Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Evidenced from Mutational Kinetic Analysis Based on Pairwise Comparison

2023· article· en· W4389231475 sur OpenAlexaff
Gopila Gupta, May Chiu, Eshrak Al‐Shaibani, María Agustina Perusini, Josephine Anne Lucero, Daniela Žáčková, Ivana Ježíšková, Anežka Kvetková, Tomáš Jurček, Jaeyoon Kim, Danielle Pyne, Anthea Travas, Amirthagowri Ambalavanan, Jiřı́ Mayer, Jessie J.F. Medeiros, Sagi Abelson, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMyeloid leukemiaFluorescence in situ hybridizationTyrosine-kinase inhibitorDasatinibPopulationBiologyImatinib mesylateInternal medicineCancer researchMedicineOncologyImmunologyGeneticsImatinibCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Recent advances in genomics in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients (pts) provide new insights in understanding somatic mutation (SM) and their prognostic implications following tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. DNMT3A, TET2, or ASXL1 (DTA) mutations are most frequently detected following TKI therapy and have adverse prognosis. Five longitudinal patterns of changes in SM after TKI therapy were suggested with its clinical significance (Kim, Blood 2017): Pattern 1, persistent mutation burden despite optimal TKI response; Pattern 2, emerging mutation which correlates with TKI resistance/CML progression; Pattern 3, mutational clearance with mixed clinical outcomes; and Pattern 4 and 5 having some mutation in germline control as well as CML cells. Clonal evolution (CE) in Philadelphia negative (Ph -) clone is found in up to 10% of CML pts who respond to TKI therapy optimally but develop +8 or -7 changes in Ph - clone. This is diagnosed only by metaphase cytogenetic test on bone marrow samples. Alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) test can be used. With recent advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS), we hypothesize that SM profiling can capture a clone carrying a SM in the Ph - population. We sequenced and analyzed mutation profiles in paired samples taken prior to TKI therapy and at longitudinal follow-up. Patients and methods The present study adopted single molecule-tagging and molecular inversion probe (smMIP)-based sequencing methods to analyze the DNA extracted from the mononuclear cell fraction of peripheral blood samples collected from CML pts at initial diagnosis and during follow-up. While conventional NGS has a relatively high intrinsic sequencing error rate and is limited in detecting mutations with a variant allele frequency (VAF) of less than 2%, smMIP-based sequencing overcomes this issue by tracking all sequence reads from a single strand and can detect mutations with a limit of detection up to 0.1%. The in-house CML-specific smMIP panel used in this study included 40 genes with 332 amplicon probes covering genes involved in epigenetic modifiers, activation signaling, myeloid transcription factor, spliceosome, tumor suppressor, cohesion, and miscellaneous functions. To evaluate kinetics of mutations, we calculated doubling time of mutations. Using the mutational VAFs from 2 time points, t1 and t2, the doubling time was calculated according to the following equation: = (-2 -1) log(2) /log(-2) - log(-1), where VAF1 and VAF2 is the VAF of the mutant at time points t1 and t2, respectively. Results We performed targeted deep sequencing on a total of 119 serial samples from 51 CML pts (median of 405.5 days following TKI therapy). 41 pts had an optimal response, 7 were non-responders, and 3 were non-evaluable for response. Pattern 2 was observed in 1 of 7 non-responders. In 12 pts pattern 3 (mutation clearance with mixed clinical outcomes) was observed. 22 pts carried 36 mutations. At baseline 9 pts had somatic mutations. Emergence of somatic mutations in optimal responders was observed in 13 out of total 51 (25%) pts, with DNMT3A (n=5), TET2 (n=4), ASXL1 (n=4), and EZH2 (n=2). While JAK2, SF3B1, U2AF1, PHF6, TP53, BRAF, and CBL were observed in one patient each (Figure 1). Particularly, those with emerging DTA mutation were all optimal responders to TKI therapy. This pattern of mutational change is novel and has never been described before. The median doubling time was 77 days (range 21-1909 days) in the group with emergence of somatic mutation in follow-up samples. The doubling time was 56.1, 93.7, 74.8 days in DNMT3A, ASXL1, and TET2 mutations, respectively. Based on kinetics of mutations (doubling time), to capture 10-fold increase (i.e. 1 log increase) of certain mutation, NGS profile can be monitored every 6-7 months. This pattern of emergence of mutations (mostly DTA mutation) in pts responding optimally to TKI therapy is new and does not fit into the five patterns mentioned in our previous paper (Kim, Blood 2017). Thus, we propose this sixth novel pattern called “Emerging mutational clones in CML pts responding optimally to TKI therapy”. Conclusion We suggest a new pattern of emerging mutations in optimal responders to TKI therapy, which could derive from expansion of Ph- clone carrying some clones with emerging mutations. Longitudinal NGS monitoring in CML patients is feasible with frequency every 6-7 months.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,003

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207