Identification of Multivariable microRNA and Clinical Biomarkers Panels to Predict Imatinib Response in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia at Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imatinib Mesylate (IM) was once hailed as the magic bullet for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and remains a front-line therapy for CML to this day alongside other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, TKI treatments are rarely curative and while they demonstrate efficacy in managing the disease, patients are often required to receive life-long treatment or risk experiencing relapse. Patients also frequently harbor innate TKI-resistance mechanisms to front-line IM therapy and without prior screening, patients can spend precious months on non-optimal treatment before transitioning to other therapeutic strategies. Thus, there is a growing interest in studying biomarkers in patients which can predict TKI response upon diagnosis. CML has unique microRNA (miRNA) expression profiles at different stages of the disease and in response to TKI-treatment. We previously generated global transcriptome profiles on treatment-naïve CD34 + CML cells with known subsequent imatinib (IM) responses and identified several differentially expressed miRNAs in IM-nonresponders as compared to IM-responders. We also reported that IM response could be predicted in treatment-naïve CD34 + cells by an in vitro colony forming cell (CFC) assay. Additionally, we previously analyzed patient data from the ENESTxtnd clinical trial to show that miRNA expression combined with CFC output data could accurately predict Nilotinib response in patients. In this study, we used a Cox Proportional Hazard (CoxPH) analysis to identify 22 out of a pool of 35 pre-validated miRNAs which were associated with IM nonresponse in CD34 + CML cells of 80 patients at diagnosis. These patients were later classified as IM-responders or IM-nonresponders based on the latest European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines. Interestingly, a Welch t-test revealed 16 of these 22 IM-response associated miRNAs to be differentially expressed between IM-responders and IM-nonresponders. Between IM-responders and IM-nonresponders we also found 7 clinical parameters that were associated with IM-response of which 3 matched parameters had significantly different values including CFC assay outputs ( p=0.0015), Sokal scores ( p=0.0070) and white blood cell counts (WBC, p=0.0028). We then trained a machine learning model employing the random-forest (RF), gradient-boosting (GBM) and naïve-bayes (NB) algorithms with different combinations of the 16 miRNAs with and without the clinical parameters of these patients to identify panels with high predictive performance based on area-under-curve (AUC) values of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) curves. Notably, the multivariable panel consisting of both miRNAs and clinical features (AUC-ROC RF=0.83, GBM=0.83, NB=0.84, AUC-PR RF=0.68, GBM=0.67, NB=0.70) performed better than either miRNA (AUC-ROC RF=0.72, GBM=0.73, NB=0.78, AUC-PR RF=0.49, GBM=0.51, NB=0.4) or clinical (AUC-ROC RF=0.82, GBM=0.84, NB=0.84, AUC-PR RF=0.64, GBM=0.67, NB=0.64) panels alone. Interestingly, 2 miRNAs in this panel, miR-185 and miR-145, were also significant classifiers for our Nilotinib predictive study suggesting that expression patterns of these miRNAs may have predictive properties for multiple TKI responses. Thus, we show that predictive accuracy of biomarkers may be supplemented by inclusion of multivariable parameters, and our findings may inform future studies on developing predictive panels for more optimized treatment plans in the clinic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".