|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEOPLASIA
From the Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology,
VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
Department of Oncology/Hematology, Sophia Children's
Hospital/University Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Dutch
Childhood Leukemia Study Group, The Hague, The Netherlands; AML-BFM
Study Group, University Children's Hospital Münster, Germany;
Oncogenetic Laboratory, Children's Hospital, Giessen,
Germany; Dutch Working Party on Cancer Genetics and
Cytogenetics, The Netherlands; and Department of Clinical
Genetics and Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Specific cytogenetic abnormalities predict prognosis in childhood
acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, it is unknown why they are
predictive and whether this is related to drug resistance. We
previously reported that Down syndrome (DS) AML was associated with
favorable resistance profiles. Here, we successfully analyzed drug
resistance and (cyto-) genetic abnormalities of 109 untreated childhood
AML samples using the 4-day total cell-kill methyl-thiazol tetrazolium
(MTT) assay. Patients were classified according to the genetic
abnormalities in the leukemic cells: t(8;21), inv(16), t(15;17),
t(9;11), other 11q23 translocations, abnormalities of chromosome 5/7,
trisomy 8 alone, normal karyotype, single random, and multiple (defined
as 2 or more) abnormalities. The DS AML samples were excluded from the
subgroup analysis. Samples with chromosome 5/7 abnormalities were
median 3.9-fold (P = .01) more resistant to cytarabine
than other AML samples. The t(9;11) samples were more sensitive to
cytarabine (median 2.9-fold, P = .002), etoposide
(13.1-fold, P = .001), the anthracyclines (2.9- to
8.0-fold, P < .01), and 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine
(10.0-fold, P = .002) than other AML samples. The trisomy
8 and t(15;17) groups were too small for meaningful analysis. All other
genetic subgroups did not show specific resistance profiles. Overall,
we found no differences in drug resistance in samples taken at
diagnosis between patients remaining in continuous complete remission
(CCR) versus the refractory/relapsed patients. Within several genetic
subgroups, however, relapsed/refractory patients were more cytarabine
resistant when compared with patients remaining in CCR, but numbers
were small and the results were not significant. We conclude that some,
but not all, cytogenetic subgroups in childhood AML display specific
drug-resistance profiles.
(Blood. 2002;100:3352-3360) Genetic alterations can be detected in
approximately 80% of de novo childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
cases and can be divided into random and nonrandom
abnormalities.1 These alterations are not only recognized
as important initiating events in the process of leukemogenesis but
also as indicators of clinical outcome.1-5 Consequently,
their presence or absence may determine the choice of therapy, for
instance, by stratification into risk groups.2 For
example, children with Down syndrome and AML (DS AML) often receive
less intensive therapy, as a consequence of the unique biology of their
disease, and its apparent sensitivity to chemotherapy, both in vivo and
in vitro.6-9 Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia
with PML-RAR There is no firm consensus considering the risk assignment of specific
genetic subgroups in childhood AML. The t(8;21) and inv(16) are usually
classified as good-risk abnormalities, but the favorable outcome of
t(15;17) patients is mainly achieved by the addition of ATRA to regular
chemotherapy.10,11 With chemotherapy alone, the clinical
outcome of t(15;17) leukemias is less good (30%-50% survival), but
this is also caused by a high early death rate and is not necessarily
related to chemotherapy resistance.4,13
In general, in childhood AML, 11q23 translocations and abnormalities in
chromosome 5/7 (including del(5q)/ Differences in prognosis may reflect differences in treatment, cellular
drug resistance, pharmacokinetics, and relapse potential of residual
disease. We and others have already demonstrated the prognostic
importance of cellular resistance in childhood
leukemias.21-24 We previously reported childhood AML to be
relatively resistant to a large number of drugs when compared with
childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).25 Also,
specific genetic ALL and AML subgroups may show different resistance
profiles. For example, hyperdiploid (> 50) ALL is particularly
sensitive to antimetabolites and
L-asparaginase26; ALL with TEL-AML gene fusion
is relatively sensitive to L-asparaginase27;
Down syndrome AML cases show a sensitive profile to a large number of
drugs9; and AML with inv(16) shows increased cytarabine
sensitivity, as well as higher cytarabine incorporation in blasts, when
compared with other AML cells.28
In this study we aimed at identifying differences in drug resistance
profiles of separate genetic subgroups in childhood AML to determine
whether these could explain their prognostic relevance. Although not
the primary aim of this study, we also assessed the relation between
the clinical outcome of the different cytogenetic subgroups and in
vitro drug resistance for the clinically most relevant drugs.
Patient samples
Cytogenetic and molecular genetic analyses
Cytogenetic studies on either bone marrow or peripheral blood samples, taken prior to induction therapy, were performed using standard banding techniques.32 Routinely, at least 20 banded metaphases were analyzed and the results described according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature 1995.33 Patients with fewer than 5 metaphases assessable for cytogenetic analysis and showing an apparently normal karyotype were excluded. In a number of samples, additional molecular genetic studies were
performed to confirm or exclude the presence of specific genetic
alterations, either by dual-colored fluorescent in situ hybridization
(FISH) using a probe for the MLL gene at 11q23 34 and a
cosmid contig for detecting inv(16)(p13q22) 35 or by
reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)
(AML1-ETO, PML-RAR The patients were assigned to different commonly accepted categories based on the cytogenetic and molecular genetic abnormalities at diagnosis: t(8;21), inv(16), t(15;17), t(9;11), other 11q23 translocations (ie, non-t(9;11)), trisomy 8 alone, abnormalities of chromosome 5/7 (including monosomy 5, del(5q), add(5), and monosomy 7), random single chromosomal abnormalities, multiple chromosomal abnormalities (defined as 2 or more abnormalities), normal karyotype, and DS AML. Drug-resistance testing The cellular drug resistance studies were performed at the Research Laboratory of Pediatric Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam. Mononuclear cells were isolated by density gradient centrifugation with Ficoll Isopaque. In case of a low blast percentage (< 80%), we determined the presence of contaminating mature granulocytes and/or lymphocytes. To eliminate granulocytes, the samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and thawed at a later stage to perform cellular resistance testing.25 Lymphocytes were removed using immunomagnetic beads.37Cellular resistance was measured using a 4-day total cell kill assay, as described before.38 Briefly, cells were seeded in 96-well microculture plates (80 µL of 0.8 × 106/mL to 1.0 × 106/mL) and cultured for 4 days. Drugs were added in 6 concentrations and always in duplicate. Six wells contained culture medium only, and 6 other wells contained culture medium with cells to determine the control cell survival (CCS). After 4 days methyl-thiazol tetrazolium (MTT) was added, which can be converted by viable cells into a colored formazan product that can be measured spectrophotometrically at 562 nm.38 The optical density (OD) is linearly related to the number of viable cells. Cytotoxicity was calculated at each drug concentration by the following equation: (OD treated well/mean OD control wells) × 100%, after correction for the background OD of the wells with culture medium only. Results were considered evaluable only if the control wells contained at least 70% leukemic cells (determined by morphology after May-Grünwald Giemsa [MGG] staining) after 4 days of culture and if the mean control OD, after correction for the background, at day 4, exceeded 0.05 arbitrary units. The LC50 value, which is the drug concentration that kills 50% of the leukemic cells, was used as a measure of resistance. Sample source (bone marrow or peripheral blood) and cryopreservation do not influence the results obtained by cellular resistance testing.39,40 There is no statistically significant relationship between OD and cellular drug resistance data, or between OD and CCS, as we reported previously.25 The following drugs were tested (minimal and maximal concentration): amsacrine (0.006-20 µg/mL; Amsidine, Parke-Davis, Hoofdorp, The Netherlands), busulfan (1.23-300 µg/mL; Myleran, Wellcome, Zeist, The Netherlands), 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine (0.0004-40 µg/mL; Leustatin, Ortho-Biotech, Raritan, NJ), cytarabine (0.002-2.5 µg/mL; Cytosar, Upjohn, Woerden, The Netherlands), daunorubicin (0.002-2 µg/mL; Cerubidine, Rhône Poulenc, Amstelveen, The Netherlands), doxorubicin (0.008-8 µg/mL; Adriblastina, Pharmacia and Upjohn, Woerden, The Netherlands), etoposide (0.05-50 µg/mL; VePesid, Bristol-Myers, Woerden, The Netherlands), idarubicin (0.002-2 µg/mL; Zavedos, Pharmacia and Upjohn), 4-hydroperoxy-ifosfamide (0.1-100 µg/mL; releases 4-hydroxy ifosfamide in solution, which is the active metabolite of ifosfamide; Asta-Medica, Diemen, The Netherlands), L-asparaginase (0.003-10 IU/mL; Paronal, Christiaens, Breda, The Netherlands), mitoxantrone (0.001-1 µg/mL; Novantrone, AHP Pharma Wyeth Lederle, Hoofdorp, The Netherlands), prednisolone disodiumphosphate (0.008-250 µg/mL; Bufa Pharmaceutical Products, Uitgeest, The Netherlands), 6-thioguanine (1.56-50 µg/mL; Lanvis, Wellcome), and vincristine (0.05-50 µg/mL; Oncovin, Eli Lilly, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). Part of the data on drug resistance in AML have been published before in the context of other study questions but not in relation to leukemia-specific genetic alterations.25 Statistical analysis Differences in the distribution of LC50 values were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. For statistical comparisons of categorical variables, the 2 test was used, or the
Fisher exact test was used in case of small numbers. Correlations were
assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ( ). The
duration of event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from
diagnosis until the date of the first adverse event (relapse, death
from any reason or the development of a second malignancy) or, if no
such event occurred, until the date of last contact. Patients who did
not attain a complete remission were considered failures at time zero.
Probabilities of EFS were estimated by the methods of Kaplan and Meier
with standard errors according to Greenwood and were compared using the
log-rank test.
If the number of samples in a specific subgroup was fewer than 5, statistical analyses were not performed. P
Patient characteristics From February 1990 to February 2000, 204 de novo AML samples were sent to our laboratory for drug resistance testing. We received 119 samples from the 1245 de novo childhood AML patients included in the AML-BFM Study Group (SG) trials as well as 85 samples from 171 patients included in the DCLSG trials over that time period.Of these 204 samples, 142 (70%) were successfully tested for drug resistance. For 109 of these patients, both genetic and drug resistance data were available, which is the (selected) study population described here. This included the subgroup of DS AML patients (n = 7), which are not analyzed as a separate subgroup in this study but were reported previously.9 Children with a successful MTT assay (n = 142) had a significantly higher white blood cell count (WBC) than children without a successful assay (WBC: median 30.7 × 109/L vs 8.0 × 109/L, P < 0.001). However, age (median 7.9 vs 5.1 years, P = .02) and sex (P = .61) were not significantly different. Children for whom genetic data were available (n = 159) did not differ significantly from children without such data, considering age (P = .13), WBC (P = .97), or sex (P = .62). The 109 children with data on both genetic alterations and drug
resistance presented with a significantly higher WBC (median 35.2 × 109/L vs 22.0 × 109/L,
P < .001) but did not differ in age
(P = .41) or sex (P = .92) compared with the
95 children without these data. Patient characteristics of the total
study population and the cytogenetic subgroups (see below) are
presented in Table 1.
Cytogenetic and molecular genetic abnormalities The patients were assigned to different genetic subgroups according to the genetic abnormalities identified in the leukemic cells. Patient characteristics for the specific genetic subgroups, excluding those with Down syndrome, are shown in Table 1. The one patient with FAB M3 and normal cytogenetics was negative for the PML-RAR transcript by PCR. Of the 4 patients with normal karyotype
and FAB M4Eo, 2 were negative for inv(16) with FISH and the other 2 patients were not studied with FISH due to lack of material. The one
patient with FAB M4Eo and a single random chromosomal abnormality was
also negative for inv(16) with FISH. Of 2 patients with 11q23
abnormalities, the partner chromosome was unknown.
For the patients for whom these genetic data were available, we compared patient characteristics at diagnosis of each specific genetic subgroup with those of individuals without this specific abnormality. The only significant difference was that children with t(9;11) were younger than the complementary AML patients (3.7 vs 8.5 years, P = .01). The subgroups with t(15;17) and trisomy 8 were not analyzed because the sample sizes were too small. The incidence of the different specific genetic abnormalities in our study is only slightly different from those reported in the literature. However, patients with t(15;17) were underreported in our group,4,41 but the frequency of this translocation is known to differ among different geographic areas.14 The frequency of abnormalities of chromosome 5/7 was 5.7% (9 of 158) in our study, which is higher than in 2 United States series of de novo AML (2%)4,41 but similar in frequency to one other European study.14 Within the group of 11q23 translocations we found no patients with t(11;19), which normally occurs in about 10% of childhood AML cases, but this abnormality can be difficult to identify in suboptimal metaphases.42 The frequency of t(9;11) is similar to the expected frequency.42 Treatment results for cytogenetic subgroups In Table 2 the treatment results (3-year probability of event-free survival) for each of the cytogenetic subgroups included in this study are given. This concerned 99 patients of the total group of 109 patients for whom data on genetic alterations and drug resistance were available. The 7 DS AML patients and the 2 patients with 11q23 abnormalities without known translocation partner, as well as 1 patient from the "normal karyotype" subgroup, were excluded. The latter patient was not treated with curative attempt due to comorbidity (severe neurologic disease). Confidence intervals were very large due to the small number of patients in each particular subgroup. Only the subgroup of patients with other 11q23 abnormalities did significantly worse than AML patients without these abnormalities (3-year EFS 25.0% vs 54.6%, P = 0.01, log-rank).
Cellular drug resistance MTT assay. The MTT assay could be successfully performed (for at least 1 drug) in 70% of patients. The sample source for the 109 children with data on both drug resistance and genetic abnormalities was peripheral blood in 31 and bone marrow in 78 cases. This does not influence the results of drug resistance testing.39 The success rate of the MTT assay in relation to genetic subgroups showed a relatively low success rate of 55% for samples with t(8;21). On the other hand, 100% of samples from patients with inv(16), t(15;17), or trisomy 8 were tested successfully, and samples with chromosome 5/7 abnormalities could be successfully tested in 89%. The reasons for failure of the MTT assay included (1) assay not being performed due to lack of cells or too few blasts at the start of the culture (n = 26 samples) and (2) true assay failures: too low optical density (n = 6), insufficient blast percentage after 4 days of culture (n = 25), and 5 other failures (such as infected culture). The control cell survival (CCS) after 4 days of culture was median 101% (range 24%-217%). There were no statistically significant differences in CCS when specific genetic subgroups were compared with the complementary group of AML samples (data shown in Table 1). The median optical density per 105 cells (the metabolic capacity of viable cells to convert MTT into formazan) was 0.50 (range 0.12-1.16). Samples with inv(16) had a significantly higher OD per 105 cells (median 0.71) than the complementary group of AML samples (median 0.48, P = .003) (Table 1). Dose response curves could be obtained for most drugs. However, even the highest concentration of prednisolone (250 µg/mL) was unable to kill more than 50% of the leukemic cells in most cases, resulting in LC50 values of more than 250 µg/mL. There were no significant differences in drug resistance between AML samples that lacked data on karyotyping or molecular genetics and samples for which data on genetic alterations were available (data not shown).Cellular drug resistance and specific genetic subgroups.
Data on in vitro drug resistance specified per genetic subgroup are
given in Tables 3 and
4. We compared each
particular genetic subgroup with the complementary group of AML samples
for which results on drug resistance testing were available.
The t(9;11) subgroup appeared to be significantly more sensitive than other AML samples for the following drugs: cytarabine (median 2.9-fold, P = .002), etoposide (13.1-fold, P = .001), daunorubicin (2.9-fold, P = .002), doxorubicin (4.5-fold, P = .001), mitoxantrone (8.0-fold, P = .004), 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine (10.0-fold, P = .002), and amsacrine (5.1-fold, P = .011). Moreover, we found large differences between t(9;11) samples and the complementary AML samples for vincristine (t(9;11) were median 4.9-fold more sensitive) and L-asparaginase (t(9;11) were median 6.4-fold more sensitive), although these differences were not statistically significant (P = .035 and .051, respectively). Results are depicted in Figure 2. We also compared the samples with non-t(9;11) 11q23 translocations with all other AML samples, which revealed no significant differences.
Within the group of 11q23 translocations, the samples with t(9;11) were significantly more sensitive than samples without t(9;11) for cytarabine (median 3.6-fold, P = .005) and doxorubicin (6.2-fold, P = .004) The 6.9-fold difference for etoposide was only borderline significant (P = .012). Differences for the other drugs were not significant. There were no significant differences in age, WBC, sex, CCS, or OD per 105 cells between these 2 groups. There were no significant correlations between resistance to each of the major AML drugs and age for the t(9;11) samples. Numbers in the t(15;17) and the trisomy 8 subgroups were too small for meaningful statistical analysis of drug resistance profiles. The median LC50 values of the 3 samples with t(15;17) were generally higher than those of the complementary AML group, but there was a large variation in LC50 values between these 3 samples. Samples with trisomy 8 showed lower median LC50 samples for a number of drugs, such as etoposide, cytarabine, daunorubicin, idarubicin, and amsacrine; for the other drugs, results were either similar or more resistant to the complementary AML group. Again, individual variations in LC50 values were large. Cellular drug resistance and treatment outcome. Although this study was not designed to assess the relationship between cellular drug resistance and treatment outcome, we analyzed whether patients who suffered from refractory disease or relapse differed in resistance (on cells taken at initial diagnoses) from patients remaining in continuous complete remission (CCR) for the following drugs: cytarabine, daunorubicin, 6-thioguanine, and etoposide. Overall, we could not find such differences for these 2 groups of patients. However, when we performed the same analysis within the specific cytogenetic subgroups, we found that refractory/relapsed patients in the inv(16) subgroup were 4-fold more resistant to cytarabine than the patients in CCR (P = .08). In the subgroup of patients with single random abnormalities, refractory/relapsed (n = 7) patients were 2.3-fold more resistant to cytarabine than patients in CCR (n = 5, P = .39). In the t(9;11) subgroup, relapsed/refractory patients (n = 3) were 1.8-fold more resistant to cytarabine than patients in CCR (n = 6, P = .36).
Because of their prognostic significance, the presence of specific genetic abnormalities in childhood AML at diagnosis is currently used to determine treatment strategy.1,2,4,5,14 The underlying mechanisms responsible for these differences in treatment outcome are, however, largely unknown. We have already shown that differences in drug resistance play a role in explaining differences in prognosis in specific genetic subgroups in childhood ALL.26,27 Therefore, in this study we attempted to determine whether differences in drug resistance profiles of the genetic subgroups found in childhood AML could, at least partially, explain their prognostic significance. For 2 genetic subgroups we found a specific drug-resistance profile. Leukemic cells from patients with chromosome 5/7 abnormalities were significantly more resistant to cytarabine and showed a trend for resistance to etoposide. The second subgroup with a specific resistance profile were the t(9;11) cases, which displayed a remarkably sensitive profile, with enhanced sensitivity to cytarabine, 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine, etoposide, the anthracyclines, and amsacrine. Interestingly, t(9;11) samples were median 4.9-fold more sensitive to vincristine and 6.4-fold more sensitive to L-asparaginase than the other AML samples, although these differences only showed a trend for statistical significance. The median LC50 values for t(9;11) samples for vincristine and L-asparaginase are similar to those reported earlier for childhood ALL.25 We previously reported a remarkable sensitive drug-resistance profile for DS AML, which involved the following drugs: cytarabine, the anthracyclines, etoposide, 6-thioguanine, amsacrine, vincristine, and busulfan.9 When we compared the t(9;11) cases with the DS AML cases, we found DS AML to be significantly more sensitive to 6-thioguanine only (median 2.1-fold, P = .003, data not shown). For all other drugs there were no significant differences between these 2 groups. Apparently, both AML subgroups have similar drug sensitivity profiles. Based on these in vitro drug-resistance profiles, we can currently distinguish 3 different cytogenetic subgroups in de novo childhood AML: on the "sensitive" side the t(9;11) and DS AML patients, on the "resistant" side AML with abnormalities of chromosome 5/7. All other AML cases can be classified as "intermediately" sensitive. In the latter group, however, we may have missed relevant differences in cellular drug resistance due to the small numbers in the specific cytogenetic subgroups and/or selection of samples. Looking at treatment outcome of patients included in this study, we found no evidence for differences in prognosis between the different cytogenetic subgroups, with the exception of the subgroup of "other 11q23 abnormalities" that did significantly worse. This may imply selection of samples; however, results have to be interpreted with caution because patients were treated on many different treatment protocols over a long time and numbers were small. For samples with abnormalities of chromosome 5/7, our findings are in full agreement with the clinical data presented by most collaborative groups.2,6,8,13,14 However, a good prognosis for t(9;11) patients has not been reported by all collaborative groups.5,15-18,20 This translocation occurs predominantly in AML, but it is also found in myelodysplasia and ALL, although this is rare.42,43 The translocation leads to the MLL-AF9 gene fusion, which involves transcription modulation or regulation.42,44 Although no explanation is readily available why the t(9;11) cases display a relatively sensitive profile, it stresses the importance of identifying the partner chromosome in MLL rearranged leukemias. We found no significant correlations between age and resistance to the major AML drugs in t(9;11) cases, which is in agreement with reports suggesting that good prognosis for childhood t(9;11) AML is age independent.16,17 We could not demonstrate enhanced drug sensitivity in the t(8;21) or inv(16) genetic subgroups. The reported good prognosis of these subgroups may be caused by other factors, such as diminished relapse potential of minimal residual disease. PCR positivity for the AML1-ETO transcript can exist even in long-term remissions in patients with t(8;21)-positive AML.45 In addition, t(8;21) is not associated with a good prognosis in all pediatric series. In the Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) 8821 study, patients with normal cytogenetics had comparable outcome to those with t(8;21),4 while in the study by Martinez-Climent the t(8;21) subgroup had inferior outcome.15 Leblanc et al reported a very favorable CR rate in t(8;21) patients but also reported a relatively high relapse rate.5 The Medical Research Council (MRC) reported that the prognosis of good-risk patients (including the inv(16) and t(8;21) cases) and the standard-risk patients was rather similar in terms of disease-free survival.2 This might support our finding of a large group of "intermediate sensitive" cases, which included the t(8;21) and inv(16) samples. However, in our study a relatively large number of the t(8;21) samples did not survive the 4-day cell culture, suggesting that we may have analyzed a selected, relatively resistant, subset of t(8;21) samples. Finally, the numbers in the specific genetic subgroups in our study were rather small, which may hamper the detection of relevant differences in drug resistance. Two other studies have reported a relationship between in vitro drug resistance and genetic alterations in AML. Nørgaard et al studied a combined set of childhood and adult AML samples and could not find a significant correlation between drug resistance and cytogenetic findings, although there was a trend for daunorubicin resistance in the unfavorable cytogenetics subset.46 Tosi et al, studying adult AML samples, found leukemic cells from patients with inv(16) to be significantly more sensitive to cytarabine than cells with "poor-risk" abnormal karyotypes.28 The inv(16) cells also incorporated more cytarabine into DNA. We have not been able to demonstrate increased cytarabine sensitivity in our inv(16) subset or in the t(8;21) cases. Therefore, we cannot confirm the hypothesis of enhanced cytarabine sensitivity in core binding factor leukemias.12,28 Although this study was not designed to detect a possible relationship between in vitro drug resistance of AML cells obtained at initial diagnosis and treatment outcome, we analyzed whether patients remaining in continuous complete remission (CCR) differed in cellular resistance from refractory/relapsed patients. We were not able to demonstrate such a relationship when all patients were grouped together. However, when analyzing this within the specific cytogenetic subgroups separately, relapsed/refractory patients were more cytarabine resistant than patients in CCR in several subgroups, but results were not significant and the low numbers preclude any firm conclusions. Overall, the data suggest that cellular drug resistance is not strongly related to long-term clinical outcome, and therefore other factors must have played a more important a role in determining clinical outcome in this cohort of childhood AML patients. This might involve differences in pharmacokinetics or pharmacogenomics, clonal evolution, and/or relapse potential of residual disease. Another explanation may be that our assay correctly predicts the cytotoxicity profile of the bulk of AML cells but does not reflect a small but resistant subclone of leukemic stem cells that eventually causes relapse.47 However, a recent study in adult AML did show independent prognostic significance of cellular drug resistance for both early response and long-term clinical outcome.48 Moreover, in pediatric AML, associations with early response have been reported either using the MTT assay39,49 or a clonogenic assay.50,51 It must be stressed that cellular drug resistance is a treatment-independent parameter of the leukemic cells taken at diagnosis. However, prognostic significance in terms of clinical outcome is treatment dependent, and as such the absence of prognostic significance in this specific cohort of patients does not mean that differences in drug resistance are not relevant. In conclusion, we found more or less similar cellular drug resistance patterns for most (cyto-) genetic subgroups, but the t(9;11) AML cases were found to have a distinct and relatively sensitive drug profile, which may explain their superior clinical outcome, as reported in the literature. AML cells with chromosome 5/7 abnormalities, on the other hand, were found to be relatively resistant to cytarabine and possibly also to other drugs. These results suggest the possibility for subgroup-directed chemotherapy in certain karyotypic or molecular genetic subgroups in de novo childhood AML and may be useful in the rational design of future treatment protocols.
The authors thank all hospitals and clinicians participating in the AML-BFM Study Group and the DCLSG who provided us with the patient samples. We are grateful to the reference laboratories of the AML-BFM SG, with regard to the cytogenetic studies especially to J. Bruch, S. Röttgers, A. Teigler-Schlegel and S. Viehmann, and with regard to the morphology data to J. Ritter, D. Reinhardt, and E. Kurzknabe. Board members of the AML-BFM Study Group are C. Bender-Götze, F. Berthold, J. Boos, U. Creutzig, A. Feldges, H. Gadner, N. Graf, G. Henze, J. Hermann, H. Jürgens, H. Kabisch, D. Körholz, T. Klingebiel, C. M. Niemeyer, A. Reiter, J. Ritter, and J. Stary. Participants of the Dutch Working Group on Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics are R. M. Slater, E. Van den Berg-De Ruiter, A. Geurts van Kessel, A. Hagemeijer-Hausman, A. Hamers, S. L. Bhola, C. G. Beverstock, and M. Blij-Philipsen. We also thank Mrs A. Heus for secretarial help and the technicians of the Laboratory of Pediatric Oncology for their expertise in testing the patient samples.
Submitted August 8, 2001; accepted June 10, 2002.
Supported by the "Landelijke Vereniging van Crematoria," Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: C. M. Zwaan, Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail: cm.zwaan{at}vumc.nl.
1.
Look AT.
Oncogenic transcription factors in the human acute leukemias.
Science.
1997;278:1059-1064 2. Stevens RF, Hann IM, Wheatley K, Gray RG. Marked improvements in outcome with chemotherapy alone in paediatric acute myeloid leukemia: results of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council's 10th AML trial. MRC Childhood Leukaemia Working Party. Br J Haematol. 1998;101:130-140[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 3. Creutzig U, Zimmermann M, Ritter J, et al. Definition of a standard-risk group in children with AML. Br J Haematol. 1999;104:630-639[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
4.
Raimondi SC, Chang MN, Ravindranath Y, et al.
Chromosomal abnormalities in 478 children with acute myeloid leukemia: clinical characteristics and treatment outcome in a cooperative Pediatric Oncology Group study-POG 8821.
Blood.
1999;94:3707-3716 5. Leblanc T, Auvrignon A, Michel G, et al. Prognosis value of cytogenetics in 250 children with acute myeloblastic leukemia treated in the LAME 89/91 protocol [abstract]. Blood. 1996;88:634a.
6.
Lange BJ, Kobrinsky N, Barnard DR, et al.
Distinctive demography, biology, and outcome of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome in children with Down syndrome: Children's Cancer Group Studies 2861 and 2891.
Blood.
1998;91:608-615
7.
Ravindranath Y, Abella E, Krischer JP, et al.
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in Down's syndrome is highly responsive to chemotherapy: experience on Pediatric Oncology Group AML Study 8498.
Blood.
1992;80:2210-2214 8. Creutzig U, Ritter J, Ludwig WD, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in children with Down syndrome. Klin Padiatr. 1995;207:136-144[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
9.
Zwaan CM, Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, et al.
Different drug sensitivity profiles of acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemia and normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells in children with and without Down syndrome.
Blood.
2002;99:245-251
10.
Mandelli F, Diverio D, Avvisati G, et al.
Molecular remission in PML/RAR 11. Mann G, Reinhardt D, Ritter J, et al. Treatment with all-trans retinoic acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia reduces early deaths in children. Ann Hematol. 2001;80:417-422[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
12.
Byrd JC, Dodge RK, Carroll A, et al.
Patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22) and acute myeloid leukemia have superior failure-free and overall survival when repetitive cycles of high-dose cytarabine are administered.
J Clin Oncol.
1999;17:3767-3775 13. Leblanc T, Berger R. Molecular cytogenetics of childhood acute myelogenous leukaemias. Eur J Haematol. 1997;59:1-13[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 14. Martinez-Climent JA, García-Conde J. Chromosomal rearrangements in childhood acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1999;21:91-102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 15. Martinez-Climent JA, Lane NJ, Rubin CM, et al. Clinical and prognostic significance of chromosomal abnormalities in childhood acute myeloid leukemia de novo. Leukemia. 1995;9:95-101[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 16. Pui CH, Raimondi SC, Srivastava DK, et al. Prognostic factors in infants with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2000;14:684-687[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
17.
Mrozek K, Heinonen K, Lawrence D, et al.
Adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia and t(9; 11)(p22; q23) have a superior outcome to patients with other translocations involving band 11q23: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study.
Blood.
1997;90:4532-4538 18. Chang M, Raimondi SC, Ravindranath Y, et al. Prognostic factors in children and adolescents with acute myeloid leukemia (excluding children with Down syndrome and acute promyelocytic leukemia): univariate and recursive partitioning analysis of patients treated on Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) Study 8821. Leukemia. 2000;14:1201-1207[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
19.
Grimwade D, Walker H, Oliver F, et al.
The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1,612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial. The Medical Research Council Adult and Children's Leukaemia Working Parties.
Blood.
1998;92:2322-2333
20.
Kalwinsky DK, Raimondi SC, Schell MJ, et al.
Prognostic importance of cytogenetic subgroups in de novo pediatric acute nonlymphocytic leukemia.
J Clin Oncol.
1990;8:75-83 21. Kaspers GJL, Zwaan CM, Veerman AJP, et al. Cellular drug resistance in acute myeloid leukemia: literature review and preliminary analysis of an ongoing collaborative study. Klin Padiatr. 1999;211:239-244[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
22.
Kaspers GJL, Veerman AJP, Pieters R, et al.
In vitro cellular drug resistance and prognosis in newly diagnosed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Blood.
1997;90:2723-2729
23.
Hongo T, Yajima S, Sakurai M, Horikoshi Y, Hanada R.
In vitro drug sensitivity testing can predict induction failure and early relapse of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Blood.
1997;89:2959-2965 24. Asselin BL, Kreissman S, Coppola DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of early response to a single dose of asparaginase in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1999;21:6-12[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
25.
Zwaan CM, Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, et al.
Cellular drug resistance profiles in childhood acute myeloid leukemia: differences between FAB-types and comparison with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Blood.
2000;96:2879-2886
26.
Kaspers GJL, Smets LA, Pieters R, Van Zantwijk CH, Van Wering ER, Veerman AJP.
Favorable prognosis of hyperdiploid common acute lymphoblastic leukemia may be explained by sensitivity to antimetabolites and other drugs: results of an in vitro study.
Blood.
1995;85:751-756
27.
Ramakers-Van Woerden NL, Pieters R, Loonen AH, et al.
TEL/AML1 gene fusion is related to in vitro drug sensitivity for L-asparaginase in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Blood.
2000;96:1094-1099 28. Tosi P, Visani G, Ottaviani E, Testoni N, Pellacani A, Tura S. Inv(16) acute myeloid leukemia cells show an increased sensitivity to cytosine arabinoside in vitro. Eur J Haematol. 1998;60:161-165[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 29. Creutzig U, Ritter J, Zimmermann M, et al. Idarubicin improves blast cell clearance during induction therapy in children with AML: results of study AML-BFM 93. AML-BFM Study Group. Leukemia. 2001;15:348-354[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
30.
Creutzig U, Ritter J, Zimmermann M, et al.
Improved treatment results in high-risk pediatric acute myeloid leukemia patients after intensification with high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone: results of Study Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster 93.
J Clin Oncol.
2001;19:2705-2713 31. Hählen K, Weening RS, Postma A, et al. Results of DCLSG protocol ANLL94, BFM oriented intensive chemotherapy, followed by allogenic or autologous bone marrow transplantation [abstract]. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001;35:251.
32.
Creutzig U, Harbott J, Sperling C, et al.
Clinical significance of surface antigen expression in children with acute myeloid leukemia: results of study AML-BFM-87.
Blood.
1995;86:3097-3108 33. Mitelman F, ed. ISCN 1995: An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger; 1995. 34. Van der Burg M, Beverloo HB, Langerak AW, et al. Rapid and sensitive detection of all types of MLL gene translocations with a single FISH probe set. Leukemia. 1999;13:2107-2113[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 35. Dauwerse HG, Smit EM, Giles RH, et al. Two-colour FISH detection of the inv(16) in interphase nuclei of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 1999;106:111-114[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 36. Van Dongen JJ, Macintyre EA, Gabert JA, et al. Standardized RT-PCR analysis of fusion gene transcripts from chromosome aberrations in acute leukemia for detection of minimal residual disease. Report of the BIOMED-1 Concerted Action: investigation of minimal residual disease in acute leukemia. Leukemia. 1999;13:1901-1928[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 37. Kaspers GJL, Veerman AJP, Pieters R, et al. Mononuclear cells contaminating acute lymphoblastic leukaemic samples tested for cellular drug resistance using the methyl-thiazol-tetrazolium assay. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:1047-1052[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
38.
Pieters R, Loonen AH, Huismans DR, et al.
In vitro drug sensitivity of cells from children with leukemia using the MTT assay with improved culture conditions.
Blood.
1990;76:2327-2336 39. Klumper E, Pieters R, Kaspers GJL, et al. In vitro chemosensitivity assessed with the MTT assay in childhood acute non-lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 1995;9:1864-1869[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 40. Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, Van Zantwijk CH, et al. In vitro drug sensitivity of normal peripheral blood lymphocytes and childhood leukaemic cells from bone marrow and peripheral blood. Br J Cancer. 1991;64:469-474[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
41.
Woods WG, Neudorf S, Gold S, et al.
A comparison of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, autologous bone marrow transplantation, and aggressive chemotherapy in children with acute myeloid leukemia in remission: a report from the Children's Cancer Group.
Blood.
2001;97:56-62 42. Dimartino JF, Cleary ML. MLL rearrangements in haematological malignancies: lessons from clinical and biological studies. Br J Haematol. 1999;106:614-626[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
43.
Swansbury GJ, Slater R, Bain BJ, Moorman AV, Secker-Walker LM, on behalf of the European 11q23 workshop participants.
Hematological malignancies with t(9;11)(p21-22;q23)
44.
Biondi A, Cimino G, Pieters R, Pui CH.
Biological and therapeutic aspects of infant leukemia.
Blood.
2000;96:24-33 45. Liu Yin JA, Tobal K. Detection of minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukaemia: methodologies, clinical and biological significance. Br J Haematol. 1999;106:578-590[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 46. Nørgaard JM, Olesen G, Kristensen JS, Pedersen B, Hokland P. Leukaemia cell drug resistance and prognostic factors in AML. Eur J Haematol. 1999;63:219-224[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 47. Bonnet D, Dick JE. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997;3:730-737[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 48. Nørgaard JM, Langkjer ST, Palshof T, Pedersen B, Hokland P. Pretreatment leukaemia cell drug resistance is correlated to clinical outcome in acute myeloid leukaemia. Eur J Haematol. 2001;66:160-167[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 49. Yamada S, Hongo T, Okada S, Watanabe C, Fujii Y, Ohzeki T. Clinical relevance of in vitro chemo-resistance in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2001;15:1892-1897[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
50.
Dow LW, Dahl GV, Kalwinsky DK, Mirro J, Nash MB, Roberson PK.
Correlation of drug sensitivity in vitro with clinical responses in childhood acute myeloid leukemia.
Blood.
1986;68:400-405 51. Smith PJ, Lihou MG. Prediction of remission induction in childhood acute myeloid leukemia Aust N Z J Med. 1986;16:39-42[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
© 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  J. STYCZYNSKI, L. GIL, K. DERWICH, J. WACHOWIAK, W. BALWIERZ, W. BADOWSKA, M. KRAWCZUK-RYBAK, M. MATYSIAK, M. WIECZOREK, A. BALCERSKA, et al. Comparison of Clofarabine Activity in Childhood and Adult Acute Leukemia: Individual Tumor Response Study Anticancer Res, May 1, 2009; 29(5): 1643 - 1650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. J.M. de Jonge, A. C. Weidenaar, A. ter Elst, H. M. Boezen, F. J.G. Scherpen, J. C.A. Bouma-ter Steege, G. J.L. Kaspers, B. F. Goemans, U. Creutzig, M. Zimmermann, et al. Endogenous Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-C Expression Is Associated with Decreased Drug Responsiveness in Childhood Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2008; 14(3): 924 - 930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Tamm, S. Richter, D. Oltersdorf, U. Creutzig, J. Harbott, F. Scholz, L. Karawajew, W.-D. Ludwig, and C. Wuchter High Expression Levels of X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein and Survivin Correlate with Poor Overall Survival in Childhood de Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2004; 10(11): 3737 - 3744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. G. Gilliland, C. T. Jordan, and C. A. Felix The Molecular Basis of Leukemia Hematology, January 1, 2004; 2004(1): 80 - 97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. M. Zwaan, S. Meshinchi, J. P. Radich, A. J. P. Veerman, D. R. Huismans, L. Munske, M. Podleschny, K. Hahlen, R. Pieters, M. Zimmermann, et al. FLT3 internal tandem duplication in 234 children with acute myeloid leukemia: prognostic significance and relation to cellular drug resistance Blood, October 1, 2003; 102(7): 2387 - 2394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Ravindranath Down Syndrome and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Paradox of Increased Risk for Leukemia and Heightened Sensitivity to Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2003; 21(18): 3385 - 3387. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
5; del(7q)/
18 years of age) diagnosed with de novo AML. Samples
for drug resistance testing were taken with institutional review board
approval from the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and
only after informed consent had been obtained. Two collaborative groups
participated: the AML-BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster)
Study Group (Münster, Germany) and the Dutch Childhood Leukemia
Study Group (DCLSG, The Hague, The Netherlands). Both groups provided us with patient samples and performed central review of the clinical and cell biologic data, including the (cyto-) genetics, the
French-Amercian-British (FAB)-type classification, and treatment
outcome. Most patients were treated according to 5 different BFM-like
protocols, which included the AML-BFM studies 87 (n = 5 of 204), 93 (n = 95 of 204), and 98 (n = 19 of 204) as well as the Dutch DCLSG
acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia (ANLL) 87 (n = 29 of 204) and
94 (n = 43 of 204) studies.
-MYH11, MLL-AF4, and
MLL-AF9).
a laboratory and clinical study of 125 cases.
Leukemia.
2001;12:792-800.