Abstract
The present study attempted to build a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based risk model for predicting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in patients with core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML). Adopting genome-wide SNP array using Affymetrix SNP array 6.0, we analyzed 868,157 SNPs with respect to OS and EFS in 104 patients with CBF-AML. Significant SNPs were identified from single SNP analysis. The risk model was constructed with incorporation of six SNPs and three clinical factors (age, c-kit exon 17 mutation, and LDH) for OS and six SNPs and three clinical factors (age, WBC, and LDH) for EFS. The model was further defined into low- and high-risk groups based on risk scores. The median age was 39 years, and the subgroup of t(8;21) and inv(16) or t(16;16) was assessed in 68 (65.4%) and 36 patients (34.6%). Finally, six SNPs per each OS (rs4353685, rs4908185, rs7709207, rs12034, rs1554844, and rs17241868) and EFS (rs13385610, rs11210617, rs11169282, rs7709207, rs4438401, and rs16894846) were incorporated into the risk model. OS was significantly different in favor of the low risk group (80.4 ± 8.4%) compared to the high-risk group (22.0 ± 7.3% at 3 years; p = 8.75 × 10− 13; HR 8.67). For EFS, there was also a significant difference between the low- (75.0 ± 5.8%) versus high-risk group (17.1 ± 6.3% at 3 years; p = 5.95 × 10− 13; HR 7.67). A genome-wide SNP-based risk model can stratify CBF-AML patients according to their OS and EFS in 104 patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous group of disease that is characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity with respect to chromosomal abnormalities and gene mutations, which is translated to marked difference in treatment response and survival [1]. Approximately 50 to 60% of AML patients exhibit cytogenetic abnormalities at the time of diagnosis [2], and majorities are associated with nonrandom chromosomal translocations but other types of abnormalities including monosomies, deletions or trisomy are also commonly encountered [3, 4]. Cytogenetics is one of the most important disease-related prognostic factors for predicting clinical outcomes following AML treatment.
Core binding factor (CBF)-positive acute myeloid leukemia is a genetically distinct group of acute myeloid leukemia, which is associated with chromosomal changes of t(8;21) and inv(16)(p13q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22). These arrangements are responsible for the production of fusion gene RUNX1/RUNX1T1 and CBFB/MYH11. Because RUNX1 and CBFB are the genes that encode α and β subunit of CBF, a heterodimeric transcription factor which is essential in normal hematopoiesis, chimeric proteins derived from aforementioned fusion genes disrupt the CBF complex and serve as pathogenic attributes of this specific type of AML [5]. CBF-AML has several distinctive characteristics compare to other forms of AML, as such that it often begins in young adults although AML is generally a disease of older adults and it often presents favorable prognosis [6, 7].
Although CBF-AML is generally believed to comprise better risk group of AML, the prognosis varies from patients and only 50% of CMF-AML patients achieve long-term remissions [8, 9]. Recently, the presence of kit mutation has known to be important for prognostication in CBF-AML patients [10]. However, there have been several controversies whether the prognostic significance is different according to the mutation location—exon 8 mutation vs exon 17 mutation—or the type of CBF—t(8;21) type vs inv(16)/t(16;16) type [11,12,13]. Besides, recent analysis from the German-Austrian AML study group reported that secondary chromosomal and genetic abnormalities were found in 39 and 84% of CBF-AML patients, which has prognostic impact on CBF-AML patients [14]. Taken together, CBF-AML, although characterized by distinctive chromosomal and genetic rearrangement, is also a heterogeneous group of disease, which may have diverse cytogenetic abnormalities differ by individual. Thus, information on series of mutations or additional chromosome abnormality alone is not full enough to understand disease heterogeneity with respect to different remission rate, relapse rate, and survival after CBF-AML treatment.
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is a variation at a single position in a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence among individuals that could explain inter-individual differences of the response or toxicity to chemotherapy. In this study, we performed SNP-based approach to CBF-AML and attempted to build a SNP-based risk model for predicting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS).
Material and methods
Study population
In the current study, a total of 104 patients were included from eight hospitals in the Republic of Korea diagnosed between 1995 and 2008. The diagnosis of CBF-AML had been confirmed by the presence of AML blasts over 20% in the marrow with the presence of t(8;21), inv(16), or t(16;16) in metaphase cytogenetics. FISH findings were adopted adjunctively to make a diagnosis of CBF-AML.
A total of 104 patients had received standard induction chemotherapy consisted of 3 days of idarubicin and 7 days of either cytarabine (n = 35) or enocitbine (behenoyl cytarabine, BHAC; n = 68) [15]. For all patients achieving a CR, consolidation therapy was given subsequently [16]. Three or four cycles of high-dose cytarabine or BHAC had been given as consolidation therapy. Alternatively, autologous stem cell transplantation following 1 or 2 cycles of consolidation had proceeded. If indicated (e.g., in CR2 or other high risk feature of disease at the time of diagnosis), allogeneic stem cell transplantation using matched sibling donor or matched unrelated donor was performed. Baseline characteristics of patients are provided in Table 1. This study was approved by the Institutional Research Board of the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Statistical analysis
The results were analyzed according to the information available as of December 2011. The primary end point of this study was OS and EFS. The OS was calculated from the beginning of induction therapy to the date of the last follow-up or death from any cause. EFS was defined as the time from the evaluation of the induction to the date of death due to any cause, relapse, or not achieving complete remission. Complete remission (CR) was defined as follows [17]: (1) Normal values for neutrophil (> 1.0 × 109/L) and platelet count (> 100 × 109/L), and independence from red cell transfusion; (2) blast cells less than 5%, no clusters or collections of blasts, absence of Auer rods on bone marrow examination; (3) absence of extramedullary leukemia. For clinical risk factors, we evaluated four clinical variables for OS and EFS including age (< 55 vs ≥ 55 years), white blood cell (WBC) counts at diagnosis (< 10.0 vs ≥ 10.0 × 109/L), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level at diagnosis (< 1000: ≥ 1000 mg/dL) and C-kit exon 17 mutation (positive vs negative). Among them, age, c-kit exon 17 mutation, and LDH were statistically significant for OS, thus being incorporated into the risk model. In the case of EFS, age, WBC, and LDH were significant and were incorporated into the risk model.
Genome-wide SNP array procedures
Genotyping methods
DNA was extracted from peripheral blood collected at the time of diagnosis using the QIAGEN DNA purification kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Genome-Wide Human SNP Arrays 6.0 (Affymetrix, CA, USA) was used for genome-wide SNP array analysis per the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples which met the quality control (QC) thresholds were included in the analyses. The QC call rate of all the samples was at least 95%.
Quality control of genome-wide SNP array genotyping data (Table 5)
The genotyping call rate in 104 cases was a median of 99.7796% (range, 97.4758–99.9294%). All the samples were successfully genotyped with more than 95.0% of call rate. The genotype data filtration criteria were as follows: (1) genotypes with minor allele frequency less than 0.05 were removed; (2) those with call rate less than 95% were eliminated; (3) the cluster QC p value less than 10− 4 were also removed from the analysis. Finally, after the genotype data filtration, a total of 538,357 and 541,328 autosomal SNPs were remained from 868,157 SNPs into the final analysis for OS and EFS (Table 5).
Single SNP analysis for OS and EFS (Table 5) (Fig. S1)
Summary of the study flow is presented in Table 5. Three genetic models including additive, dominant, and recessive models were used for the analysis. Among these three genetic models, a model with the lowest p values was selected per each SNP with the criteria of (1) p value cutoff of less than 10− 4 and (2) the presence of at least two significant SNPs within 100 kb in order to reduce the risk of false positive result. A total of 578 SNPs for OS and 579 SNPs for EFS were selected for further step of analysis, respectively. Full detailed data of single SNP analysis for OS and EFS are presented as Manhattan plots in Supplemental Fig. 1..
Risk model generation for OS and EFS
Selection of the best SNP risk score (Table 5, Fig. 1)
Next, SNP reduction procedure was performed remaining in 578 and 579 SNPs for OS and EFS respectively. To move on to next step of model construction, the following statistical criteria was used: (i) p value < 0.000025 from Cox proportional hazard regression model (adjusted for clinical factors: age, c-kit exon 17 mutation, and LDH for OS; age, WBC, and LDH for EFS) and (ii) high linkage disequilibrium r2 < 0.8. Consequently, a total of nine SNPs for each OS and EFS were selected. Next, we summed the number of deleterious genotypes for all the SNPs (adverse 1, reference 0) in each particular combination [18], which was then grouped by number of adverse SNPs and ranked by likelihood. In addition, we ran 1000 bootstrap stepwise selection Cox models using these SNPs and used scree plot to graphically determine the optimal number of SNPs to retain (Fig. 1a, scree plot for OS; Fig. 1c, scree plot for EFS). Finally, six highest ranked SNPs for each OS and EFS were selected and incorporated into risk model generation.
Risk model generation: SNP risk models, SNP risk score + clinical risk score (Fig. 1b, d)
Based on above result, a multiple SNP-based risk model was determined with incorporation of six SNPs and three clinical factors (age, c-kit exon 17 mutation, and LDH) for OS and six SNPs and three clinical factors (age, WBC, and LDH) for EFS. To assess the relevance of the incorporating of SNPs and clinical factors, the final model was assessed using time-dependent receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curves and compared among the models generated using SNP score only versus clinical factors only versus risk score generated based on SNP score plus clinical factors, as shown in Fig. 1 (Fig. 1b, ROC curve for OS; Fig. 1d, ROC curve for EFS).
Risk group definition by risk score (Fig. S4)
The model was grouped into two groups according to the number of deleterious variables: risk score 0–3 as a low risk (n = 71) and 4–8 as a high risk (n = 33). For EFS, the same procedure was repeated. The model was grouped into two groups according to the number of deleterious variables: risk score 0–5 as a low risk (n = 65) and 6–9 as a high risk (n = 39). The cutoff points for classifying two groups were based on the reversal of events/no event, according to the risk score (Fig. S2).
Results
Patients’ characteristics and treatment outcomes (Table 1)
Patients’ characteristics and treatment outcomes are presented in Table 1. Median age of the overall population (n = 104) was 39 years (range 15–75) and male to female ratio was 63 (60.6%):41 (39.4%). The median follow-up duration was 36.2 months. The subgroup of t(8;21) was 68 patients (65.4%) and inv(16) or t(16;16) was 36 patients (34.6%) among the assessed patients. The CR has been achieved in 91 patients with probability of achieving CR of 87.5% (95% C.I. 81.1–93.9%) after one cycle of induction (n = 86) or two courses (n = 5). The 2 years’ OS and EFS rates were 65.1 ± 4.9 and 54.7 ± 5.2%, respectively. No differences of CR, OS, and EFS were noted between the group with t(8;21) vs with inv(16)/t(16;16) (p = 0.743 for CR, p = 0.609 for OS, p = 0.759 for EFS) and between the patients receiving cytarabine vs BHAC (p = 0.173 for CR, p = 0.603 for OS, p = 0.188 for EFS).
Candidate SNPs for OS and EFS (Table 2)
Table 2 demonstrates final SNPs selected for risk model prediction. The risk model was constructed with six SNPs for OS: rs4353685 on chromosome 2p14, rs4908185 on chromosome 1p21, rs7709207 on chromosome 5q22, rs12034 on chromosome 21q21, rs1554844 on chromosome 12q13.1, and rs17241868 on chromosome 3q22. For EFS, risk model was constructed with other six SNPs: rs13385610 on chromosome 2p37.1, rs11210617 on chromosome 1q34.2, rs11169282 on chromosome 12q13.1, rs7709207 on chromosome 5q22, rs4438401 on chromosome 18q21.2, and rs16894846 on chromosome 6q21.3. The details of each SNP are listed in Table 2, in which relevance with specific genes are demonstrated. Chromosome loci of 5q22 (rs7709207) and 12q13.1 (rs1554844, rs11169282) are associated with both OS and EFS.
Overall survival and event free survival by each SNP (Fig. S3)
Overall survival by SNPs
Table 3 summarizes the influence of SNP genotypes on overall survival. The CC/CA genotype group with rs4353685 demonstrated better OS than the AA genotype group (p = 1.76 × 10− 5 after adjustment for age/c-kit exon17/LDH). The CC/CT genotype compared to the TT genotype with rs4908185 (p = 1.02 × 10− 6), the CC/CG genotype compared to GG genotype with rs7709207 (p = 1.22 × 10− 5), the AA/AG genotype compared to the GG genotype with rs12034 (p = 1.30 × 10− 5), the CC genotype compared to the GT genotype with rs1554844 (p = 1.46 × 10− 5), and the AA genotype compared to the GG/GA genotype with rs17241868 (p = 9.61 × 10− 6) showed better OS.
The rs4908185 is located in the intronic region of olfactomedin III (OLFM3) and the rs12034 is located on coxsackie and adenovirus receptor (CXADR) as demonstrated in Table 2. Both genes are known to be associated with resistance of “anoikis,” a term indicating detachment-induced apoptosis.
Event-free survival by SNPs
As shown in Table 3, the AA/AG genotype group with rs13385610 demonstrated better EFS than the GG genotype group (p = 1.33 × 10− 5 after adjustment for age/c-kit exon17/LDH). The GG/GA genotype compared to the AA genotype with rs11210617 (p = 1.22 × 10− 5), the CC genotype compared to CT genotype with rs11169282 (p = 1.29 × 10− 5), the CC/CG genotype compared to the GG genotype with rs7709207 (p = 2.49 × 10− 5), the AA genotype compared to the AG genotype with rs4438401 (p = 1.51 × 10− 5), and the AA genotype compared to the GG/GA genotype with rs16894846 (p = 1.85 × 10− 5) showed better EFS.
The rs11169282 is located in the intronic regions of ceramide synthases 5(CerS5), which is one of the isoforms of ceramide synthases (CerSs) family gene. Ceramide signaling is of great interest as a therapeutic target based on its relevance to apoptosis pathway and antitumor activity. The rs16894846 is located in the intronic regions of glutamate receptor metabotropic 4 (GRAM4), which is involved in inhibition of the cyclic adenosine 3′,5′-monophosphate (cAMP) cascade.
Results of risk model generation
Figure 2 and Table 4 demonstrate OS and EFS according to risk groups, which were defined by low- and high-risk groups based on risk scores from the number of deleterious SNPs and clinical factor variables. OS was significantly different in favor of the low- risk group compared to the high-risk group (p = 8.75 × 10− 13, HR 8.67 with 95% CI 4.30–17.5). For EFS, there was also a significant difference between the low- and high-risk groups (p = 5.95 × 10− 13, HR 7.67 with 95% CI 4.03–14.6).
Time-dependent receiver-operating curve characteristics analysis
Time-dependent ROC was performed in order to confirm SNP-based risk score model is independent from clinical factor derived risk model. As shown in Fig. 1, the models generated using SNP score only or generated based on SNP score plus clinical factors showed significantly higher AUC over time compared to that generated with clinical factors only, thus demonstrating that SNP-based risk model can improve prognostication power in CBF (+) AML patients (Fig. 1b, ROC curve for OS; Fig. 1d, ROC curve for EFS).
Discussion
The current results, analyzed from a total of 104 patients, enabled the identification of genetic variants relevant to OS and EFS in uniformly treated CBF-AML patients. We constructed the risk model with incorporation of six SNPs and three clinical factors for predicting OS and EFS, which is further divided into low- and high-risk group based on the number of deleterious SNPs and clinical factors. Survival analysis based on this SNP-based risk model showed significant difference in OS and EFS between the low- and high-risk groups, which enabled to identify a group of patients with poor OS and EFS.
In a previous study, we presented the relevance of genetic variants based on genome-wide SNP analysis on OS in normal karyotpe AML (AML-NK) patients [19]. Although there had been several previous studies demonstrating the association of genomic polymorphism and treatment outcome in AML patients [20,21,22,23,24], they were limited by the number of SNPs evaluated during the studies. With adopting genome-wide SNP array using Affymetrix SNP array 6.0, we could comprehensively analyze more than 500,000 SNPs at the same time with respect to OS and EFS in a homogeneous group of CBF-AML. Using a same algorithm as described in an earlier study [19], we reduced the number of SNPs incorporated into the risk model for OS and EFS. The number of SNPs was reduced from 538,357 to 578 after the first step of single SNP analysis, then to nine SNPs after processing of SNP selection procedure, and finally to six SNPs (Table 5) incorporated into the risk model for OS (rs4353685, rs4908185, rs7709207, rs12034, rs1554844, and rs17241868). After applying same SNP reduction procedure, the number of SNPs was reduced from 538,357 and finally to six SNPs for building a risk model for EFS (rs13385610, rs11210617, rs11169282, rs7709207, rs4438401, and rs16894846). The identified candidate SNPs were then evaluated to determine involved genes. We particularly paid attention to several genes including OLFM3 located in chromosome 1p21 (rs4908185), CXADR in chromosome 21q21 (rs12034), CerS5 in chromosome 12q13.1 (rs11169282), and GRM4 in chromosome 6q21.3 (rs16894846), which are demonstrated in detail in the following paragraphs.
Olfactomedin III (OLFM3) expression possibly has a role in anoikis resistance in number of human cancer cell lines [25]. Anoikis is a form of normal cell death resulting from a loss of contact with the appropriate extracellular matrix. Therefore, dysregulation of this process termed “anoikis resistance” may contribute to development and metastases of tumor [26]. Coxsackie and adenovirus receptor (CXADR), which serves as a primary receptor for adenoviral infection [27], has been also reported to have essential roles in a variety of cellular process involving cell survival, apoptosis, adhesion, and migration [28]. Although biologic function of CXADR in malignancies of different origin remains under debate, recent Japanese study revealed that CXADR signaling substantially has an impact on growth and survival of oral squamous carcinoma cells (SCC) via inhibition of anoikis [28]. Although anoikis resistance has paid attention in solid cancers as a vital step during cancer progression and metastatic colonization [29], it has rarely been described in hematologic malignancies. However, interaction between the cells in the bone marrow microenvironment and the hematopoietic cells is known to be critical to initiation of hematologic malignancy and its maintenance [30]. Anti-apoptotic myeloid leukemia cell sequence-1 (MCL-1), suggested as an essential protein for development and survival of AML cells [31], was shown to render anoikis resistance in several types of solid cancer [32,33,34,35]. Moreover, MCL1 downregulation via targetable compound has shown sensitizes cancer cells to anoikis [36]. Our finding along with previous findings, potentially suggested that dysregulation of anoikis may contribute to pathogenesis of AML.
Ceramide, an established second messenger in apoptotic signaling pathways, is generated from the cells in response to stimuli of diverse cellular and environmental stresses [37]. Ceramide can be produced either by the hydrolysis of sphingomyelin (SM) through sphingomyelinase (SMase) or by a family of genes known as ceramide synthases (CerSs), which consists of six members of CerS1 to CerS6 [38, 39]. Alternate isoforms of this family may exert opposing roles in the same cell, for example, the pro-apoptotic role of CerS1 and the anti-apoptotic role of CerS6 has been demonstrated in head and neck cancer [40]. CerS5, a member of this family, has consistently been reported as having a pro-apoptotic role. It was observed that overexpression of CerS5 increased apoptosis in human cervical carcinoma cells [37] and mRNA level of CerS5 was higher in endometrial and colon cancer cell lines and decreased following the induction of apoptosis [41]. Based on the observations that disturbances in ceramide signaling may lead altered apoptotic signaling, and potentially leads to cancer development, manipulating CerS proteins and ceramide levels are gaining increasing attention as therapeutic target. Accordingly, ceramide generation was also shown to be relevant to apoptosis and antitumor activity in human leukemia cell lines [42], and novel approaches to enhance the efficacy of ceramide are currently investigated for the treatment of AML [43, 44]. Our finding appears to be in line with previous findings with respect to a potential association of ceramide regulation on treatment outcomes of AML patients.
Glutamate receptor metabotropic 4 (GRAM4) together with GRM6, GRF7, and GRM8, belongs to group III metabotropic glutamate receptor family and is linked to the inhibition of the cyclic AMP cascade. Because this receptor family is related to glutamatergic neurotransmission, GRM4 gene variants have been proposed to be associated with many neuropathologic conditions [45, 46]. Recently, the important role of glutamate in intercellular communication has been extended to non-neural systems and Chinese researchers reported that the GRM4 gene polymorphism was associated with the susceptibility and metastasis of osteosarcoma in a Chinese Han population [47]. Before this result, the role of cAMP pathway in osteosarcoma has been demonstrated in mice, in which tumor growth was suppressed by cAMP-dependent protein kinase [48, 49]. Although little is known about GRM4 in acute leukemia, extensive evidences have suggested that cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) is proto-oncogene in AML and its overexpression in AML cell lines results in increased cell proliferation and growth in the absence of cytokines [50]. Because CREB-dependent signaling has a role in leukemogenesis, small-molecule inhibitors of CREB are currently under development [51, 52].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first genome-wide SNP analysis focusing on CBF-AML patients. With this non-candidate driven method, both identified and unidentified pathways in AML biology were comprehensively considered and taken into account in our analysis. However, there were also several limitations in the present study. One of the major weaknesses is the absence of validation cohort to confirm the universal validity of this risk model. For consolidating this risk model, further replication of the results in a different group of patients is needed. In addition, we did not perform functional study of each SNP. Therefore, we cannot confirm biologic role of each SNP on AML cells, and further functional study needs to be proceeded.
In summary, the present study suggests that the genome-wide SNP-based risk model obtained from 104 patients with CBF-AML was able to identify a group of patients with poor overall survival and event-free survival.
References
Kumar CC (2011) Genetic abnormalities and challenges in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Genes Cancer 2(2):95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947601911408076
Martens JH, Stunnenberg HG (2010) The molecular signature of oncofusion proteins in acute myeloid leukemia. FEBS Lett 584(12):2662–2669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2010.04.002
Byrd JC, Mrozek K, Dodge RK, Carroll AJ, Edwards CG, Arthur DC, Pettenati MJ, Patil SR, Rao KW, Watson MS, Koduru PR, Moore JO, Stone RM, Mayer RJ, Feldman EJ, Davey FR, Schiffer CA, Larson RA, Bloomfield CD, Cancer, Leukemia Group B (2002) Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461). Blood 100(13):4325–4336. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2002-03-0772
Mrozek K, Radmacher MD, Bloomfield CD, Marcucci G (2009) Molecular signatures in acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Opin Hematol 16(2):64–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOH.0b013e3283257b42
Erickson P, Gao J, Chang KS, Look T, Whisenant E, Raimondi S, Lasher R, Trujillo J, Rowley J, Drabkin H (1992) Identification of breakpoints in t(8;21) acute myelogenous leukemia and isolation of a fusion transcript, AML1/ETO, with similarity to Drosophila segmentation gene, runt. Blood 80(7):1825–1831
Frohling S, Schlenk RF, Kayser S, Morhardt M, Benner A, Dohner K, Dohner H, German-Austrian AMLSG (2006) Cytogenetics and age are major determinants of outcome in intensively treated acute myeloid leukemia patients older than 60 years: results from AMLSG trial AML HD98-B. Blood 108(10):3280–3288. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-04-014324
Paschka P, Dohner K (2013) Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: can we improve on HiDAC consolidation? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2013(1):209–219. https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.209
Marcucci G, Mrozek K, Ruppert AS, Maharry K, Kolitz JE, Moore JO, Mayer RJ, Pettenati MJ, Powell BL, Edwards CG, Sterling LJ, Vardiman JW, Schiffer CA, Carroll AJ, Larson RA, Bloomfield CD (2005) Prognostic factors and outcome of core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia patients with t(8;21) differ from those of patients with inv(16): a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol 23(24):5705–5717. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.15.610
Schlenk RF, Benner A, Krauter J, Buchner T, Sauerland C, Ehninger G, Schaich M, Mohr B, Niederwieser D, Krahl R, Pasold R, Dohner K, Ganser A, Dohner H, Heil G (2004) Individual patient data-based meta-analysis of patients aged 16 to 60 years with core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: a survey of the German Acute Myeloid Leukemia Intergroup. J Clin Oncol 22(18):3741–3750. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.03.012
Boissel N, Leroy H, Brethon B, Philippe N, de Botton S, Auvrignon A, Raffoux E, Leblanc T, Thomas X, Hermine O, Quesnel B, Baruchel A, Leverger G, Dombret H, Preudhomme C, Acute Leukemia French A, Leucemies Aigues Myeloblastiques de l'Enfant Cooperative G (2006) Incidence and prognostic impact of c-Kit, FLT3, and Ras gene mutations in core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML). Leukemia 20(6):965–970. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2404188
Kim HJ, Ahn HK, Jung CW, Moon JH, Park CH, Lee KO, Kim SH, Kim YK, Kim HJ, Sohn SK, Kim SH, Lee WS, Kim KH, Mun YC, Kim H, Park J, Min WS, Kim HJ, Kim DH, L/Mds Working Party KSoH (2013) KIT D816 mutation associates with adverse outcomes in core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia, especially in the subgroup with RUNX1/RUNX1T1 rearrangement. Ann Hematol 92(2):163–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-012-1580-5
Pollard JA, Alonzo TA, Gerbing RB, Ho PA, Zeng R, Ravindranath Y, Dahl G, Lacayo NJ, Becton D, Chang M, Weinstein HJ, Hirsch B, Raimondi SC, Heerema NA, Woods WG, Lange BJ, Hurwitz C, Arceci RJ, Radich JP, Bernstein ID, Heinrich MC, Meshinchi S (2010) Prevalence and prognostic significance of KIT mutations in pediatric patients with core binding factor AML enrolled on serial pediatric cooperative trials for de novo AML. Blood 115(12):2372–2379. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-09-241075
Care RS, Valk PJ, Goodeve AC, Abu-Duhier FM, Geertsma-Kleinekoort WM, Wilson GA, Gari MA, Peake IR, Lowenberg B, Reilly JT (2003) Incidence and prognosis of c-KIT and FLT3 mutations in core binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukaemias. Br J Haematol 121(5):775–777. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04362.x
Paschka P, Du J, Schlenk RF, Gaidzik VI, Bullinger L, Corbacioglu A, Spath D, Kayser S, Schlegelberger B, Krauter J, Ganser A, Kohne CH, Held G, von Lilienfeld-Toal M, Kirchen H, Rummel M, Gotze K, Horst HA, Ringhoffer M, Lubbert M, Wattad M, Salih HR, Kundgen A, Dohner H, Dohner K (2013) Secondary genetic lesions in acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16) or t(16;16): a study of the German-Austrian AML Study Group (AMLSG). Blood 121(1):170–177. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-05-431486
Park HS, Kim DW, Kim CC, Kim HK, Kim JS, Hwang TJ, Kim HJ, Kim HS, Song HS, Park JW, Ahn HS, Chung TJ, Cho KS, Lee KS, Choi YM (1996) Induction chemotherapy with idarubicin plus N4-behenoyl-1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine in acute myelogenous leukemia: a newly designed induction regimen--a prospective, cooperative multicenter study. Semin Hematol 33(4 Suppl 3):24–29
Kim ST, Jung CW, Lee J, Kwon JM, Oh SY, Park BB, Lee HR, Kim HJ, Kim K, Kim WS, Ahn JS, Kang WK, Park K (2007) Postremission therapy for acute myeloid leukemia in the first remission. Leuk Lymphoma 48(5):937–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428190701223309
Cheson BD, Bennett JM, Kopecky KJ, Buchner T, Willman CL, Estey EH, Schiffer CA, Doehner H, Tallman MS, Lister TA, Lo-Coco F, Willemze R, Biondi A, Hiddemann W, Larson RA, Lowenberg B, Sanz MA, Head DR, Ohno R, Bloomfield CD (2003) Revised recommendations of the International Working Group for Diagnosis, Standardization of Response Criteria, Treatment Outcomes, and Reporting Standards for Therapeutic Trials in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol 21(24):4642–4649. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.04.036
Cerhan JR, Wang S, Maurer MJ, Ansell SM, Geyer SM, Cozen W, Morton LM, Davis S, Severson RK, Rothman N, Lynch CF, Wacholder S, Chanock SJ, Habermann TM, Hartge P (2007) Prognostic significance of host immune gene polymorphisms in follicular lymphoma survival. Blood 109(12):5439–5446. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-11-058040
Choi H, Jung C, Sohn SK, Kim S, Kim HJ, Kim YK, Kim T, Zhang Z, Shin ES, Lee JE, Moon JH, Kim SH, Kim KH, Mun YC, Kim H, Park J, Kim J, Kim D (2013) Genome-wide genotype-based risk model for survival in acute myeloid leukaemia patients with normal karyotype. Br J Haematol 163(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.12492
Monzo M, Brunet S, Urbano-Ispizua A, Navarro A, Perea G, Esteve J, Artells R, Granell M, Berlanga J, Ribera JM, Bueno J, Llorente A, Guardia R, Tormo M, Torres P, Nomdedeu JF, Montserrat E, Sierra J, Cetlam (2006) Genomic polymorphisms provide prognostic information in intermediate-risk acute myeloblastic leukemia. Blood 107(12):4871–4879. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2005-08-3272
Kuptsova N, Kopecky KJ, Godwin J, Anderson J, Hoque A, Willman CL, Slovak ML, Ambrosone CB (2007) Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and therapeutic outcomes of AML patients from SWOG clinical trials. Blood 109(9):3936–3944. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-05-022111
Ho PA, Kopecky KJ, Alonzo TA, Gerbing RB, Miller KL, Kuhn J, Zeng R, Ries RE, Raimondi SC, Hirsch BA, Oehler V, Hurwitz CA, Franklin JL, Gamis AS, Petersdorf SH, Anderson JE, Godwin JE, Reaman GH, Willman CL, Bernstein ID, Radich JP, Appelbaum FR, Stirewalt DL, Meshinchi S (2011) Prognostic implications of the IDH1 synonymous SNP rs11554137 in pediatric and adult AML: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group and SWOG. Blood 118(17):4561–4566. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-04-348888
Wagner K, Damm F, Gohring G, Gorlich K, Heuser M, Schafer I, Ottmann O, Lubbert M, Heit W, Kanz L, Schlimok G, Raghavachar AA, Fiedler W, Kirchner HH, Brugger W, Zucknick M, Schlegelberger B, Heil G, Ganser A, Krauter J (2010) Impact of IDH1 R132 mutations and an IDH1 single nucleotide polymorphism in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia: SNP rs11554137 is an adverse prognostic factor. J Clin Oncol 28(14):2356–2364. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.27.6899
Damm F, Heuser M, Morgan M, Yun H, Grosshennig A, Gohring G, Schlegelberger B, Dohner K, Ottmann O, Lubbert M, Heit W, Kanz L, Schlimok G, Raghavachar A, Fiedler W, Kirchner H, Dohner H, Heil G, Ganser A, Krauter J (2010) Single nucleotide polymorphism in the mutational hotspot of WT1 predicts a favorable outcome in patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 28(4):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0342
Keenan J, Joyce H, Aherne S, O’Dea S, Doolan P, Lynch V, Clynes M (2012) Olfactomedin III expression contributes to anoikis-resistance in clonal variants of a human lung squamous carcinoma cell line. Exp Cell Res 318(5):593–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2012.01.012
Kim YN, Koo KH, Sung JY, Yun UJ, Kim H (2012) Anoikis resistance: an essential prerequisite for tumor metastasis. Int J Cell Biol 2012:306879. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/306879
Bergelson JM, Cunningham JA, Droguett G, Kurt-Jones EA, Krithivas A, Hong JS, Horwitz MS, Crowell RL, Finberg RW (1997) Isolation of a common receptor for coxsackie B viruses and adenoviruses 2 and 5. Science 275(5304):1320–1323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1320
Saito K, Sakaguchi M, Iioka H, Matsui M, Nakanishi H, Huh NH, Kondo E (2014) Coxsackie and adenovirus receptor is a critical regulator for the survival and growth of oral squamous carcinoma cells. Oncogene 33(10):1274–1286. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.66
Paoli P, Giannoni E, Chiarugi P (2013) Anoikis molecular pathways and its role in cancer progression. Biochim Biophys Acta 1833(12):3481–3498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.06.026
Greim H, Kaden DA, Larson RA, Palermo CM, Rice JM, Ross D, Snyder R (2014) The bone marrow niche, stem cells, and leukemia: impact of drugs, chemicals, and the environment. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1310(1):7–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12362
Glaser SP, Lee EF, Trounson E, Bouillet P, Wei A, Fairlie WD, Izon DJ, Zuber J, Rappaport AR, Herold MJ, Alexander WS, Lowe SW, Robb L, Strasser A (2012) Anti-apoptotic Mcl-1 is essential for the development and sustained growth of acute myeloid leukemia. Genes Dev 26(2):120–125. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.182980.111
Boisvert-Adamo K, Longmate W, Abel EV, Aplin AE (2009) Mcl-1 is required for melanoma cell resistance to anoikis. Mol Cancer Res 7(4):549–556. https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-08-0358
Bondar VM, McConkey DJ (2002) Anoikis is regulated by BCL-2-independent pathways in human prostate carcinoma cells. Prostate 51(1):42–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.10070
Pongrakhananon V, Nimmannit U, Luanpitpong S, Rojanasakul Y, Chanvorachote P (2010) Curcumin sensitizes non-small cell lung cancer cell anoikis through reactive oxygen species-mediated Bcl-2 downregulation. Apoptosis 15(5):574–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10495-010-0461-4
Galante JM, Mortenson MM, Bowles TL, Virudachalam S, Bold RJ (2009) ERK/BCL-2 pathway in the resistance of pancreatic cancer to anoikis. J Surg Res 152(1):18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.05.017
Wongpankam E, Chunhacha P, Pongrakhananon V, Sritularak B, Chanvorachote P (2012) Artonin E mediates MCL1 down-regulation and sensitizes lung cancer cells to anoikis. Anticancer Res 32:5343–5351
Mesicek J, Lee H, Feldman T, Jiang X, Skobeleva A, Berdyshev EV, Haimovitz-Friedman A, Fuks Z, Kolesnick R (2010) Ceramide synthases 2, 5, and 6 confer distinct roles in radiation-induced apoptosis in HeLa cells. Cell Signal 22(9):1300–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cellsig.2010.04.006
Levy M, Futerman AH (2010) Mammalian ceramide synthases. IUBMB Life 62:347–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/iub.319
Pewzner-Jung Y, Ben-Dor S, Futerman AH (2006) When do lasses (longevity assurance genes) become CerS (ceramide synthases)?: insights into the regulation of ceramide synthesis. J Biol Chem 281(35):25001–25005. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.R600010200
Senkal CE, Ponnusamy S, Rossi MJ, Bialewski J, Sinha D, Jiang JC, Jazwinski SM, Hannun YA, Ogretmen B (2007) Role of human longevity assurance gene 1 and C18-ceramide in chemotherapy-induced cell death in human head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Mol Cancer Ther 6(2):712–722. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0558
Mojakgomo R, Mbita Z, Dlamini Z (2015) Linking the ceramide synthases (CerSs) 4 and 5 with apoptosis, endometrial and colon cancers. Exp Mol Pathol 98(3):585–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexmp.2015.03.019
Yun SH, Park ES, Shin SW, Na YW, Han JY, Jeong JS, Shastina VV, Stonik VA, Park JI, Kwak JY (2012) Stichoposide C induces apoptosis through the generation of ceramide in leukemia and colorectal cancer cells and shows in vivo antitumor activity. Clin Cancer Res 18(21):5934–5948. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0655
Casson L, Howell L, Mathews LA, Ferrer M, Southall N, Guha R, Keller JM, Thomas C, Siskind LJ, Beverly LJ (2013) Inhibition of ceramide metabolism sensitizes human leukemia cells to inhibition of BCL2-like proteins. PLoS One 8(1):e54525. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054525
Chen L, Luo LF, Lu J, Li L, Liu YF, Wang J, Liu H, Song H, Jiang H, Chen SJ, Luo C, Li KK (2014) FTY720 induces apoptosis of M2 subtype acute myeloid leukemia cells by targeting sphingolipid metabolism and increasing endogenous ceramide levels. PLoS One 9(7):e103033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103033
Parihar R, Mishra R, Singh SK, Jayalakshmi S, Mehndiratta MM, Ganesh S (2014) Association of the GRM4 gene variants with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy in an Indian population. J Genet 93(1):193–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-014-0334-7
Muhle H, von Spiczak S, Gaus V, Kara S, Helbig I, Hampe J, Franke A, Weber Y, Lerche H, Kleefuss-Lie AA, Elger CE, Schreiber S, Stephani U, Sander T (2010) Role of GRM4 in idiopathic generalized epilepsies analysed by genetic association and sequence analysis. Epilepsy Res 89(2-3):319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2010.02.004
Jiang C, Chen H, Shao L, Dong Y (2014) GRM4 gene polymorphism is associated with susceptibility and prognosis of osteosarcoma in a Chinese Han population. Med Oncol 31(7):50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0050-4
Molyneux SD, Di Grappa MA, Beristain AG, McKee TD, Wai DH, Paderova J, Kashyap M, Hu P, Maiuri T, Narala SR, Stambolic V, Squire J, Penninger J, Sanchez O, Triche TJ, Wood GA, Kirschner LS, Khokha R (2010) Prkar1a is an osteosarcoma tumor suppressor that defines a molecular subclass in mice. J Clin Invest 120(9):3310–3325. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI42391
Griffin KJ, Kirschner LS, Matyakhina L, Stergiopoulos SG, Robinson-White A, Lenherr SM, Weinberg FD, Claflin ES, Batista D, Bourdeau I, Voutetakis A, Sandrini F, Meoli EM, Bauer AJ, Cho-Chung YS, Bornstein SR, Carney JA, Stratakis CA (2004) A transgenic mouse bearing an antisense construct of regulatory subunit type 1A of protein kinase A develops endocrine and other tumours: comparison with Carney complex and other PRKAR1A induced lesions. J Med Genet 41(12):923–931. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2004.028043
Shankar DB, Cheng JC, Kinjo K, Federman N, Moore TB, Gill A, Rao NP, Landaw EM, Sakamoto KM (2005) The role of CREB as a proto-oncogene in hematopoiesis and in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell 7(4):351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.02.018
Sakamoto KM, Grant S, Saleiro D, Crispino JD, Hijiya N, Giles F, Platanias L, Eklund EA (2015) Targeting novel signaling pathways for resistant acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Genet Metab 114(3):397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2014.11.017
Xiao X, Li BX, Mitton B, Ikeda A, Sakamoto KM (2010) Targeting CREB for cancer therapy: friend or foe. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 10(4):384–391. https://doi.org/10.2174/156800910791208535
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant of National Research Foundation of Korea (MEST), Ministry for, Republic of Korea (2009-0088130 and 2010-0028016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 655 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, S., Choi, H., Kim, H.J. et al. Genome-wide genotype-based risk model for survival in core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia patients. Ann Hematol 97, 955–965 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-018-3260-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-018-3260-6