MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950921432 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-114275

A Novel Predictor of Response to Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Therapy in AML Provides Strategies for Sensitization of Leukemia Stem Cells in Individual Patients

2018· article· en· W2950921432 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley Ng, Erwin M. Schoof, Amanda Mitchell, Mark D. Minden, Lars Bullinger, Hartmut Döhner, Hervé Dombret, Claude Preudhomme, Meyling Cheok, John E. Dick, Jean Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGemtuzumab ozogamicinStem cellLeukemiaMedicineCalicheamicinOncologyImmunologySensitizationInternal medicineMyeloid leukemiaCancer researchCD33BiologyCD34Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with normal cytogenetics, NPM1 mutation, and no FLT3-ITD are considered to be at low molecular risk (LMR). We previously reported that most LMR patients have a low LSC17 score; these patients derive benefit from the addition of low fractionated doses of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to standard treatment and have favorable survival outcomes compared to patients with high LSC17 scores (Ng, Nature 2016). We recently developed a 13-gene sub-score (LMR13) that can be calculated from the LSC17 assay; a high LMR13 score identifies not only patients with molecularly-defined LMR disease, but also patients with LMR-like gene expression (GE), treatment response, and survival outcome. Similar to LMR cases, LMR-like patients gain a significant overall, event-free, and relapse-free survival (OS, EFS, RFS) benefit from the addition of GO treatment as observed in the ALFA-0701 trial cohort (OS: P=0.05; EFS: P=0.009; RFS: P=0.02). To gain mechanistic insight into the molecular determinants of GO response in LMR and LMR-like patients, we modelled the pathway through which GO traverses upon targeting a cell using a curated list of n=245 genes that includes the GO binding receptor CD33, lysosomal markers, ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, DNA damage response/repair machinery, and pro/anti apoptotic factors. Sparse statistical regression was applied to a training dataset of n=495 AML patients (GSE6891) to identify the minimal subset of pathway components that were most associated with high LMR13 scores as a surrogate for GO responsiveness. This process selected n=16 genes which were then used to construct a random forest classifier to predict GO response. The final decision-tree based model, termed GO12, retained n=12 of the 16 pathway genes, and was able to accurately identify LMR and LMR-like patients across n=5 independent AML cohorts totaling n=1188 patients (AUC≈80.8%). As expected, ALFA-0701 patients who were predicted to be LMR-like with >50% certainty achieved significantly better survival when GO was added to their induction regimen (OS: P=0.03; EFS: P<0.001; RFS: P=0.001), while those with <50% certainty did not (Figure 1). The GO12 model also estimates the contribution of each GO pathway component to treatment sensitivity or resistance. For example, higher expression of ABCB1/ABCG1 transporter or the DNA damage repair gene APEX1 is associated with significantly lower GO response; these genes are key contributors to GO resistance. Conversely, higher lysosomal membrane marker LAMP1, pro-apoptotic BID, or GO-binding receptor CD33 GE was associated with significantly higher GO response. These results suggest that AML patients may be further sensitized to GO if treated in combination with inhibitors or agonists of specific pathway components that confer resistance or sensitivity to response, respectively. To determine if there is a therapeutic window of GO effects on normal versus leukemic hematopoietic stem cells, we applied the GO12 model to GE data derived from hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC)-enriched human umbilical cord blood (hUCB) samples (GSE29105, GSE42414, GSE58299). The baseline predicted probability of GO sensitivity of these populations was at most 17%. Simulated GE knockdown (KD) of all possible combinations of the key resistance factors up to 3 standard deviations revealed a maximal model-predicted probability of GO response of 52%, consistent with robust inherent resistance of hUCB-HSPC to GO-mediated cytotoxicity. In contrast, applying the same analysis to GE data derived from AML patient samples predicted that LSC-containing populations can be sensitized to GO with up to 75% probability through double or triple KD of key GO resistance factors. Furthermore, analysis of chromatin accessibility (ATAC-Seq) data revealed that GO toxin (calicheamicin) DNA-binding motifs are situated within genomic loci where chromatin is significantly more open in LSC-enriched than in LSC-depleted or hUCB-derived HSPC/mature cell fractions (P<0.001, Figure 2), suggesting that LSC can be preferentially targeted by GO. Taken together, the GO12 response predictor represents a novel tool for rational selection of combination therapies to maximize GO response in individual patients with AML. Disclosures Bullinger: Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Oncology: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Döhner:Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dombret:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad (Incyte): Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire-Baxalta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207