4.2 Article

Multistep pathogenesis of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in patients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 109, Issue 1, Pages 50-57

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13768

Keywords

CMML; NRAS; pathogenesis; SRSF2; TET2

Categories

Funding

  1. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der Biologie und Therapie von Tumorkrankheiten [ABCMML-112015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study demonstrates validation of a multistep pathogenesis model in CMML patients, with worse prognosis in patients with TET2/SRSF2/NRAS complex mutations and higher risk of AML transformation.
Background A multistep pathogenesis of myeloid leukemia including mutations in epigenetic, spliceosome, and signaling genes has been recently demonstrated in a preclinical model but is poorly validated in patients. Methods Clinical, phenotypic, and biologic features were compared between three distinct molecularly defined CMML cohorts including TET2 monomutated patients (T, n = 10), TET2/SRSF2 bimutated patients (TS, n = 19), and patients who had NRAS mutations in addition to TET2/SRSF2 comutations (TSN, n = 14). Results Median survival was 90, 45, and 9 months, respectively (p = .001). Whereas no patient in the T and TS group transformed into acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 6/14 patients in the TSN group had AML at study entry or transformed during follow-up. Leukocyte counts, blast cell counts, and LDH levels were significantly higher in TSN vs. TS and T, respectively, whereas hemoglobin and platelet values were not significantly different. Increased growth factor-independent myeloid colony formation was restricted to TSN but not found in T and TS, respectively. The proportion of patients showing in vitro myelomonocytic skewing in T, TS, and TSN was 0%, 56%, and 100%, respectively (p = .010). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that the model of multistep pathogenesis in CMML can be recapitulated in patients regarding clinical, phenotypic, and biologic features.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available