Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 114–121

Clinical implications of gene expression profiling of acute myeloid leukemia

Article

Abstract

Since the first demonstration in 1999 that gene expression profiling could distinguish between different variants of acute leukemia, several studies have analyzed patients with acute myeloid leukemia on the basis of cytogenetics, morphologic subgroups, secondary mutations such as FLT3, prognosis, and therapeutic response. This review examines some of these data and attempts to discuss whether these analyses will have clinical applications in diagnosis, prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, disease classification, or individually targeted therapy. It is probable that all these areas will reach the clinical environment eventually, but in the short to medium term, microarrays will be involved only in diagnosis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, et al.: Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 1999, 286:531–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al.: Proposals for the classification of the acute leukaemias. French-American-British (FAB) co-operative group. Br J Haematol 1976, 33:451–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vardiman JW, Harris NL, Brunning RD: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the myeloid neoplasms. Blood 2002, 100:2292–2302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moreno I, Martin G, Bolufer P, et al.: Incidence and prognostic value of FLT3 internal tandem duplication and D835 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 2003, 88:19–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kottaridis PD, Gale RE, Frew ME, et al.: The presence of a FLT3 internal tandem duplication in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) adds important prognostic information to cytogenetic risk group and response to the first cycle of chemotherapy: analysis of 854 patients from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML 10 and 12 trials. Blood 2001, 98:1752–1759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mills KI, Gilkes AF, Walsh V, et al.: Rapid and sensitive detection of internal tandem duplication and activating loop mutations of FLT3. Br J Haematol 2005, 130:203–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steudel C, Wermke M, Schaich M, et al.: Comparative analysis of MLL partial tandem duplication and FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations in 956 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 37:237–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snaddon J, Smith ML, Neat M, et al.: Mutations of CEBPA in acute myeloid leukemia FAB types M1 and M2. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 37:72–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frohling S, Schlenk RF, Stolze I, et al.: CEBPA mutations in younger adults with acute myeloid leukemia and normal cytogenetics: prognostic relevance and analysis of cooperating mutations. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:624–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schnittger S, Schoch C, Kern W, et al.: Nucleophosmin gene mutations are predictors of favourable prognosis in acute myelogenous leukemia with a normal karyotype. Blood 2005, 106:3733–3739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boissel N, Renneville A, Biggio V, et al.: Prevalence, clinical profile and prognosis of NPM mutations in AML with normal karyotype. Blood 2005, 106:3618–3620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cazzaniga G, Dell’Oro MG, Mecucci C, et al.: Nucleophosmin mutations in childhood acute myelogenous leukemia with normal karyotype. Blood 2005, 106:1419–1422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowen DT, Frew ME, Hills R, et al.: RAS mutation in acute myeloid leukemia is associated with distinct cytogenetic subgroups but does not influence outcome in patients younger than 60 years. Blood 2005, 106:2113–2119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoch C, Kohlmann A, Schnittger S, et al.: Acute myeloid leukemias with reciprocal rearrangements can be distinguished by specific gene expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99:10008–10013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Debernardi S, Lillington DM, Chaplin T, et al.: Genome-wide analysis of acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype reveals a unique pattern of homeobox gene expression distinct from those with translocation-mediated fusion events. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 37:149–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morikawa J, Li H, Kim S, et al.: Identification of signature genes by microarray for acute myeloid leukemia without maturation and acute promyelocytic leukemia with t(15;17)(q22;q12)(PML/RARalpha). Int J Oncol 2003, 23:617–625.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vey N, Mozziconacci MJ, Groulet-Martinec A, et al.:Identification of new classes among acute myelogenous leukaemias with normal karyotype using gene expression profiling. Oncogene 2004, 23:9381–9391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gutierrez NC, Lopez-Perez R, Hernandez JM, et al.: Gene expression profile reveals deregulation of genes with relevant functions in the different subclasses of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2005, 3:402–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Virtaneva K, Wright FA, Tanner SM, et al.: Expression profiling reveals fundamental biological differences in acute myeloid leukemia with isolated trisomy 8 and normal cytogenetics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001, 98:1124–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haferlach T, Kohlmann A, Schnittger S, et al.: AML M3 and AML M3 variant each have a distinct gene expression signature but also share patterns different from other genetically defined AML subtypes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2005, 43:113–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G: Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001, 98:5116–5121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bullinger L, Dohner K, Bair E, et al.: Use of gene-expression profiling to identify prognostic subclasses in adult acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2004, 350:1605–1616. This paper, and that by Valk et al. [23•], expanded the use of microarrays in AML by using large patient numbers. This also allowed limited clinical outcome data to be incorporated into the array data.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valk PJ, Verhaak RG, Beijen MA, et al.: Prognostically useful gene-expression profiles in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2004, 350:1617–1628. The largest study on adult patients with AML published to date. Sixteen distinct disease-related clusters were identified—only some of them related to cytogenetic abnormalities. Some of the remaining clusters contained established mutations such as FLT3 or CEBPβ, but the fact that some clusters remain without known markers indicates that we still do not know the underlying molecular causes of most types of AML.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tibshirani R, Hastie T, Narasimhan B, Chu G: Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99:6567–6572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ross ME, Mahfouz R, Onciu M, et al.: Gene expression profiling of pediatric acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood 2004, 104:3679–3687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kohlmann A, Schoch C, Schnittger S, et al.: Molecular characterization of acute leukemias by use of microarray technology. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 37:396–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haferlach T, Kohlmann A, Schnittger S, et al.: Global approach to the diagnosis of leukemia using gene expression profiling. Blood 2005, 106:1189–1198. A large study of nearly 1000 different leukemia samples covering both acute and chronic leukemia types and subtypes, which showed that gene expression profiles or lists can be identified that could reproduce 12 predefined cytogenetic and morphologic groups with a high specificity (> 97% in 11 of the 12 groups). This evidence could form the basis of a diagnostic gene chip to complement and enhance conventional diagnostic techniques such as immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, FISH, or RT-PCR.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kohlmann A, Schoch C, Dugas M, et al.: Pattern robustness of diagnostic gene expression signatures in leukemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2005, 42:299–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gale RE, Hills R, Pizzey AR, et al.: Relationship between FLT3 mutation status, biologic characteristics, and response to targeted therapy in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood 2005, 106:3768–3776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neben K, Schnittger S, Brors B, et al.: Distinct gene expression patterns associated with FLT3- and NRAS-activating mutations in acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype. Oncogene 2005, 24:1580–1588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olesen LH, Nyvold CG, Aggerholm A, et al.: Delineation and molecular characterization of acute myeloid leukemia patients with coduplication of FLT3 and MLL. Eur J Haematol 2005, 75:185–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alcalay M, Tiacci E, Bergomas R, et al.: Acute myeloid leukemia bearing cytoplasmic nucleophosmin (NPMc+ AML) shows a distinct gene expression profile characterized by up-regulation of genes involved in stem cell maintenance. Blood 2005, 106:899–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    European LeukemiaNET. http://www.leukemia-net.org. Accessed September 13, 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haferlach T, Kohlmann A, Basso G, et al.: A multi-center and multi-national program to assess the clinical accuracy of the molecular subclassification of leukemia by gene expression profiling. Blood 2005, In press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacayo NJ, Meshinchi S, Kinnunen P, et al.: Gene expression profiles at diagnosis in de novo childhood AML patients identify FLT3 mutations with good clinical outcomes. Blood 2004, 104:2646–2654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yagi T, Morimoto A, Eguchi M, et al.: Identification of a gene expression signature associated with pediatric AML prognosis. Blood 2003, 102:1849–1856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tan Y, Li G, Zhao C, et al.: Expression of sorcin predicts poor outcome in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res 2003, 27:125–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Okutsu J, Tsunoda T, Kaneta Y, et al.: Prediction of chemosensitivity for patients with acute myeloid leukemia, according to expression levels of 28 genes selected by genome-wide complementary DNA microarray analysis. Mol Cancer Ther 2002, 1:1035–1042.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Haematology, School of MedicineWales College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath ParkCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations