Genomic subtyping and therapeutic targeting of acute erythroleukemia
Acute erythroid leukemia (AEL) is a high-risk leukemia of poorly understood genetic basis, with controversy regarding diagnosis in the spectrum of myelodysplasia and myeloid leukemia. We compared genomic features of 159 childhood and adult AEL cases with non-AEL myeloid disorders and defined five ag...
Saved in:
Published in | Nature genetics Vol. 51; no. 4; pp. 694 - 704 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Nature Publishing Group
01.04.2019
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Acute erythroid leukemia (AEL) is a high-risk leukemia of poorly understood genetic basis, with controversy regarding diagnosis in the spectrum of myelodysplasia and myeloid leukemia. We compared genomic features of 159 childhood and adult AEL cases with non-AEL myeloid disorders and defined five age-related subgroups with distinct transcriptional profiles: adult, TP53 mutated; NPM1 mutated; KMT2A mutated/rearranged; adult, DDX41 mutated; and pediatric, NUP98 rearranged. Genomic features influenced outcome, with NPM1 mutations and HOXB9 overexpression being associated with a favorable prognosis and TP53, FLT3 or RB1 alterations associated with poor survival. Targetable signaling mutations were present in 45% of cases and included recurrent mutations of ALK and NTRK1, the latter of which drives erythroid leukemogenesis sensitive to TRK inhibition. This genomic landscape of AEL provides the framework for accurate diagnosis and risk stratification of this disease, and the rationale for testing targeted therapies in this high-risk leukemia. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 K.E.M., S.M.M., T.B.A., D.P.T., M.V., V.V. performed experiments. G.S. analyzed copy number data. E.J.E. performed structure modeling. M.M, C.C, D.T., N.K., G.B., F.L., S.K.K.Y., A.Y.E.J., R.E.R., E.S., A.W., L.B.T., I.D.L., R.D.A., B.T.K., A.L.B., H.S., C.H., P.M., S.M., T.H. provided patient samples and clinical data. R.C.L., B.L.E. shared data for the MDS comparison cohort. Y.L., C.Q., X.M., X.Z., E.S., S.P.H, M.R. performed genomic sequencing, analysis, and support. L.S., S.P., D.P., C.C. performed statistical analyses. C.G.M. designed and oversaw the study, analyzed genomic data and wrote the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS I.I. led the collaboration, coordination and processing of patient samples, analyzed genomic data, performed experiments and wrote the manuscript. J.W. analyzed sequencing data. J.K.C. performed central review of immunophenotypic data. L.J.J. performed histopathology analyses |
ISSN: | 1061-4036 1546-1718 1546-1718 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41588-019-0375-1 |