MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mechanisms of Resistance to Lenalidomide in Del(5q) Myelodysplastic Syndrome Patients

2015· article· en· W2601654193 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Martínez-Høyer, Roderick Docking, Simon K. Chan, Martin Jädersten, Jeremy Parker, Aly Karsan

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMyelodysplastic syndromesNeutropeniaMedicineBone marrow failureBone marrowThrombocytosisMyeloidImmunologyInternal medicineOncologyStem cellCancer researchHaematopoiesisBiologyMultiple myelomaChemotherapyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) comprise a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell malignancies characterized by the presence of dysplastic bone marrow (BM) cells leading to inefficient hematopoiesis in one or more myeloid lineages. The most common chromosomal alteration in MDS, accounting for ~20% of cases, is defined by interstitial deletion of the long arm of chromosome 5, and these cases comprise a distinctive subtype in MDS termed del(5q) . Patients suffering from del(5q) MDS present with anemia, variable neutropenia and thrombocytosis. Patients are blood transfusion dependent, which over time can lead to high mortality due to iron overload. The immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (LEN) is the treatment of choice for del(5q) patients, achieving transfusion independence and remission in two thirds of treated patients. At the molecular level, LEN cytotoxic activity relies on its binding to the E3-ligase adaptor cereblon (CRBN) selectively leading to CSNK1a protein degradation. Unfortunately, 50% of patients eventually acquire resistance and relapse 2 to 3 years after treatment. Of note, patients at relapse present an increased risk to progress to acute myeloid leukemia. Mutations in the TP53 gene are correlated with resistance to LEN in del(5q) MDS. However, only approximately 20% of patients that become resistant are TP53 mutated. Therefore, there is a medical need to identify drivers of resistance to LEN in del(5q) patients in order to design patient tailored therapies and prevent relapse episodes. To this end, we have collected CD34+ cells from the BM of six del(5q) MDS patients at the time of diagnosis and upon relapse after treatment with LEN and performed whole genome and transcriptome sequencing on these paired samples. By comparing the genome sequencing data at the two time points, we have identified two patients harboring mutations in the TP53 gene: TP53 R273S arises de novo at the resistant stage and TP53 C106Y is existing at diagnosis and expands at relapse. These results are in accordance with previous reports showing strong association of TP53 mutations and resistance to LEN and therefore validate our approach. In addition, we have identified candidate mutations as drivers of the resistant phenotype, which we hypothesize may substitute or cooperate with TP53 mutations, allowing for the malignant del(5q) stem cell survival during LEN treatment and expansion at relapse. Furthermore, RNA-seq data analysis from the paired samples has identified differentially expressed genes shared among all resistant cases and led us to identify novel putative pathways leading to resistance to LEN in del(5q) hematopoietic stem cell. Of note, we did not find any mutation or significant change in the expression of CRBN or CSNK1A1 genes in our cohort of del(5q) MDS patients at relapse, and therefore they do not have a prognostic value for resistance to LEN. The integration of the data obtained in our study will shed light in to the molecular mechanisms leading to resistance to LEN in del(5q) MDS patients and may pave the way for the design of novel and more effective therapies to treat these patients at relapse. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→