Cytogenomic profiling and clinical correlation of 21q22 amplification in acute myeloid leukemia reveal distinct cytogenomic features and poor outcomes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1630638/v1

Download PDF

Case Report

Cytogenomic profiling and clinical correlation of 21q22 amplification in acute myeloid leukemia reveal distinct cytogenomic features and poor outcomes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1630638/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: 21q22 amplification is a rare cytogenetic aberration in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). So far, the cytogenomic and molecular features and clinical correlation of 21q22 amplification in AML have not been well-characterized.

Case Presentation: Here, we describe a case series of three AML patients with amplified 21q22 identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Two of these patients presented with therapy-related AML (t-AML) secondary to chemotherapy, while the third had de novo AML. There was one case each of FAB M0, M1 and M4. Morphologic evidence of dysplasia was identified in both t-AML cases. Phenotypic abnormalities of the myeloblasts were frequently observed. Extra copies of 21q22 were present on chromosome 21 and at least one other chromosome in two cases. Two showed a highly complex karyotype. Microarray analysis of 21q22 amplification in one case demonstrated alternating levels of high copy number gain split within the RUNX1 locus at 21q22, a pattern distinct from the iAMP21 profile reported in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). The same patient also had mutated TP53. Two patients died at 1.5 and 11 months post-treatment, while the third elected palliative care and died within 2 weeks.

Conclusions: Our results provide further evidence that 21q22 amplification in AML is associated with complex karyotypes, TP53 aberrations, and poor outcomes. Furthermore, we demonstrate that 21q22 amplification is not always intrachromosomally localized to chromosome 21 and could be a result of structural aberrations involving 21q22 and other chromosomes.

Acute myeloid leukemia

chromosome 21q22

amplification

cytogenomic

outcomes

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a genetically heterogeneous disease including several distinct subtypes based on cytogenetic or molecular characteristics (1, 2). Chromosomal and molecular genetic characteristics are a major feature for risk stratification to predict outcomes and guide treatment selection (3). Although 5-year survival of adult AML has improved in the past decades due to advances in treatment, including targeted therapies and risk-adapted regimens, more than two thirds of AML patients do not survive beyond 5 years and most relapse (4). Identification of additional biomarkers as new risk factors will help refine risk stratification and would have the potential to improve AML outcomes.

Genomic segmental or locus amplifications are rare in AML. They may be present in forms including homogeneously staining regions (hsr), double minutes (dmin), ring chromosomes, and marker chromosomes, resulting in a high copy number of oncogenes that are usually associated with adverse prognosis (5). The two most commonly amplified genes in AML are MYC and KMT2A (MLL). Amplification of KMT2A (located at 11q23) in AML has been reported in patients with older age, complex karyotypes, TP53 aberrations, and inferior outcomes (6). More recently, amplification of 21q22, defined as five or more copies per cell, has emerged as a rare cytogenomic aberration in AML. Gain of 21q22 has been reported in a limited number of AML patients, primarily case reports of adults featuring complex karyotypes (7–14). The largest reported cohort contained 13 patients and the authors observed that 21q22 amplification was associated with reduced survival (14). But the majority of other studies reported in the literature lack outcome information, rendering the clinical significance of this aberration uncertain. Most of the 21q22 aberrations were identified by conventional karyotyping and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and only a few were characterized at the genomic level using high resolution genomic approaches such as chromosomal microarray and sequencing (12, 13). A recent study from Nguyen and colleagues showed that the entire RUNX1 gene may not always be included in 21q22 amplification, and as such, the molecular genomic features of 21q22 amplification in AML remain to be determined (12). Due to the rarity of this abnormality, there is a need to further assess clinical correlation of 21q22 amplification in AML.

Here, we report a study aimed to characterize the cytogenetic, pathological, and clinical features of three AML patients with 21q22 amplification. Results from our study show that 21q22 amplification in AML may be present either in cluster or scattered across the genome and is closely associated with a complex karyotype. AML with 21q22 amplification is often associated with treatment-related disease and correlated with inferior outcomes. Moreover, our microarray studies demonstrate that the full-length RUNX1 locus is not uniformly amplified in 21q22 amplification, suggesting that RUNX1 may not be essential in 21q22 amplification in AML.

Patients

21q22 amplification was identified by FISH using the probe for the RUNX1/RUNX1T1 rearrangement derived from t(8;21)(q21.3;q22) translocation or its variants in 3 cases out of a total of 1,291 AML cases processed at the Colorado Genetics Laboratory of the Department of Pathology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus between 2005 and 2021. Clinical information was obtained by medical record review.

Morphological and Immunophenotyping analyses

The morphologic features of bone marrow aspirates and core biopsies were reviewed for each case. The cases were classified according to the 2016 revision of WHO classification, as well as the French-American-British (FAB) classification. Each case was examined for specific morphological features including presence and lineage of dysplasia. Available immunophenotype by immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry was reviewed in each case.

Cytogenetic and FISH studies

Conventional karyotyping and FISH studies were performed according to standard procedures. The following FISH probes were used to detect common AML cytogenetic aberrations: 5p15.2/5q31(EGR1), CEP7/7q31(D7S486), RUNX1/RUNX1T1, KMT2A(MLL), PML /RARA and CBFB from Abbott Molecular (Green Oaks, IL), TP53, MECOM/3q26 and DEK/NUP214 from Metasystems (Altlussheim, Germany). In this study, 21q22 amplification was defined as five or more copies of RUNX1 per cell by FISH, and a complex karyotype was deemed as having three or more chromosomal abnormalities. Karyotypes were described following the 2016 International System for Cytogenomic Nomenclature (ISCN) (15).

Chromosomal microarray analysis

Bone marrow samples were prepared by extracting DNA using the Maxwell RSC Blood DNA kit (Promega, Madison, WI). Microarray analysis was performed using the Infinium CytoSNP-850K v1.2 BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). DNA was amplified, enzymatically fragmented, and hybridized to probes on the array following the manufacturer’s instruction. Array images were scanned using the GeneChip Scanner 3000 7G (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Copy number variation and B-allele frequency were analyzed using the BlueFuse Multi software (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Genomic coordinates refer to the human genome GRCh37/hg19 build.

Molecular genetic analysis

DNA was extracted from the bone marrow aspirates and paired normal tissue (fingernail), and was analyzed for mutations in an AML panel of 49 genes (ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, BRAF, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, CXCR4, DDX41, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, GATA1, GATA2, HRAS, IDH1, IDH2, JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, KDM6A, KIT, KMT2A, KRAS, MPL, MYD88, NF1, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PPM1D, PTEN, PTPN11, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SH2B3, SRSF2, STAG2, STAT3, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1, ZRSR2). Samples were processed using a custom hybridization-probe capture method (IDT) and run on the Illumina NovaSeq platform. Data was processed using a custom bioinformatics pipeline and analyzed with Fabric Genomics software. Paired normal tissue was used to determine the germline status of each variant. Variant interpretation was based on the ACMG-AMP guidelines for somatic variants (16).

Karyotype and FISH results

Three AML patients with 21q22 amplification were identified by RUNX1 FISH, representing approximately 0.23% of AML cases tested at the lab during the study period. All cases showed five or more copies of RUNX1 probe signals. Patient 1 displayed a highly complex karyotype of 45,XX,der(3)inv(3)(p25q25)add(3)(q11.2),-5,-7,+12,-14,add(14)(p11.2),+19,hsr(21)(q22)[3]/45,sl,-4,-12,+r,+mar[15]/46,sdl1,+8[2] in three clones, each having monosomy 5 and 7 and an hsr on chromosome 21 (Fig. 1a). Interphase FISH revealed a total of 5–10 copies of RUNX1 signal per cell and sequential metaphase FISH identified several signals clustered within the hsr(21) and one RUNX1 signal each on chromosome 14 and a marker chromosome of unknown origin (Fig. 1b-c). Patient 2 also showed a complex karyotype in multiple clones: 46,XY,del(7)(q22)[1]/46,idem,-Y,+der(Y)t(Y;21)(p11.3;q22.1),der(5)t(5;21)(q35;q22.1)[5]/46,idem,-Y,+der(Y)t(Y;21)(p11.2;q22.1)dup(21)(q22.1q22.3),der(9)t(9;21)(q34;q22.1)dup(21)(q22.1q22.3),der(18)t(18;21)(p11.3;q22.1)[14] (Fig. 1d). The abnormalities included 5q and 7q deletions and multiple structural rearrangements involving duplication of a 21q22 segment or dup(21)(q22) (Fig. 1d). Interphase FISH using RUNX1/RUNX1T1 revealed cells with 4–15 copies of RUNX1 signals and metaphase FISH showed the RUNX1 signals were scattered across multiple chromosomes: Yp, 5q, 9q, 18q, and 22p (Fig. 1e-f). Patient 3 had a karyotype of 46,XX,?r(21)(q11.2q22)[6]/47,sl,+mar[10]/46,XX[4] with a ring-like abnormal chromosome 21 in two clones (Fig. 1g). Interphase FISH showed multiple clustered RUNX1 signals, likely present on the ring chromosome 21 (Fig. 1h-i) (metaphase FISH was not performed).

Morphologic and immunophenotyping features

Patient 1 was noted to have severe pancytopenia with 3% circulating blasts. Subsequent bone marrow examination revealed a normocellular marrow with 55% phenotypically abnormal myeloblasts. The blasts were medium to large in size and had round to irregular nuclear outlines and dispersed nuclear chromatin with prominent nucleoli. There was minimal maturation in the myeloid lineage with mild dysgranulopoiesis. By flow cytometry immunophenotyping, the blasts expressed bright CD34, CD117, decreased CD38, CD13, variable CD33, variable HLA-DR, variable CD7 and partial CD56. The case was diagnosed as t-AML by WHO classification and type M1 by FAB classification.

Patient 2 presented with severe thrombocytopenia, macrocytic anemia and 4% circulating blasts at an outside institution. Bone marrow examination revealed approximately 35% blasts and blast equivalents (promonocytes) and mild dysmegakaryopoiesis. By immunohistochemistry, the blasts/blast equivalents were positive for CD34, CD117 and negative for CD61. Flow cytometry data were not available. The findings were diagnostic for t-AML by WHO classification and FAB type M4.

Patient 3’s initial bone marrow biopsy showed 67% blasts without morphologic evidence of myeloid differentiation. By flow cytometry, the blasts expressed CD34, HLA-DR, CD117, increased CD33, CD11b, TdT and partial dim CD79a without expression of MPO. The case was diagnosed as AML, NOS by WHO classification and FAB type M0.

Chromosomal microarray findings

Chromosomal microarray was performed on DNA extracted from bone marrow of patient 1 and the analysis was focused on chromosome 21. The results showed alternating levels of gain at 21q21.3q22.3 (chr21:27,129,093 − 48,100,155), with high-copy-number (~ 3–6 copies) at distal 21q22.12q22.3 (chr21:36,230,819 − 48,100,155) compared to more proximal 21q22.12 segment (~ 3 copies, chr21:27,129,093 − 35,134,557) (Table 1). The high-copy-number gain on 21q21.3q22.3 covered the 5’ RUNX1 that includes non-coding exons 1–2 and coding exons 3–6, (NM_001754.4) while the rest of the RUNX1 gene (exons 7–9) is within the low-copy-number gain segment (Fig. 2). This finding was confirmed by FISH using RUNX1 break-apart probes targeting the sequences flanking the RUNX1 locus, with ~ 3 copies and 4–7 copies of probe signals corresponding to 3’ and 5’ portions of the RUNX1 locus, respectively (data not shown).

Table 1

Results from focused microarray analysis of 21q22 amplification in Patient 1
Cytogenetic band	Genomic coordinates (GRCh37/hg19)	Size	Copy Number
21q21.3–21q22.11	Chr21:27,129,093 − 35,134,557	8.0 Mb	~ 3
21q22.11–21q22.11	Chr21:35,138,326 − 35,725,729	587.4 Kb	~ 3–6
21q22.11–21q22.12	Chr21:35,726,226 − 36,228,360	502.1 Kb	~ 3
21q22.12–21q22.3	Chr21:36,230,819 − 48,100,155	11.9 Mb	~ 3–6

Molecular genetics findings

Mutational analysis was performed on Patient 1 and showed two somatic pathogenic TP53 variants, NM_001126112.2: c.1024C > T, [p.Arg342Ter] and c.817C > T, [p.Arg273Cys]. No other mutations were identified in the other 48 myeloid-related genes analyzed, including RUNX1, FLT3, NPM1, WT1, CEBPA, and IDH1.

Clinical outcomes

Two patients had a prior history of malignancy: Patient 1 (77 years, female) with follicular lymphoma, and Patient 2 (26 years, male) with Hodgkin lymphoma; both developed therapy-related AML (t-AML). Patient 3 (32 years, female) had no history of malignancy and was diagnosed with AML when she was 25 weeks pregnant. Patient 1 was treated with venetoclax/azacitidine and died 1.5 months after diagnosis. Patient 3 deferred treatment until after delivery and then received “7 + 3” induction chemotherapy (idarubicin/cytarabine). She then went on to receive an allogeneic stem cell transplantation in the setting of persistent measurable residual disease and died of disease relapse 11 months after diagnosis. Patient 2 elected palliative care and received no treatment for AML; he died 2 weeks after diagnosis (Table 2).

Segmental genomic gains in hematologic neoplasms may be present in a form of small extrachromosomal fragments such as double minutes, homogenously stained regions, ring chromosomes, or marker chromosomes. B-ALL with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) is recognized as a provisional entity in the 2016 Revision of WHO Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms and is associated with inferior outcome. iAMP21 in B-ALL presents as an intrachromosomal amplification of 21q22 on hsr(21), ring chromosome, or a marker chromosome, and often includes the RUNX1 locus (17). Using copy number analysis of paired-end sequencing, Li and colleagues showed that iAMP21 in B-ALL commonly presents as a distinctive alternating gain and loss pattern on 21q with loss of the most distal portion of 21q22 (18). This distal 21q22 loss is thought to result from the double-stranded breakage occurring during breakage-fusion-bridge cycles followed by chromothripsis and other complex structural rearrangements (18, 19).

Amplification involving 21q22 is rare in AML with a reported prevalence of 0.1% (14), but the true incidence of 21q22 amplification in AML remains elusive. Less than 50 cases have been reported in the literature so far, and most were identified by cytogenetically visible abnormal 21q or “incidental” findings by RUNX1 FISH (7–14). Most were reported in adults with complex chromosomal abnormalities. Fewer than 15 cases reported thus far had accompanying clinical outcomes, leaving the impact of 21q22 amplification on AML prognosis uncertain.

In this study, two patients, Patients 1 and 3, had an hsr on an abnormal chromosome 21. These results are in agreement with the observations by others who described hsr(21) as a common form of 21q22 amplification in AML (10, 12, 14). Interestingly, Patients 1 and 2 in our study displayed 21q22 gain scattered across several different chromosomes. The RUNX1 FISH probe signals were dispersed in interphase nuclei and metaphase chromosomes rather than as a clustering pattern seen in hsr(21). Jain and colleagues described AML in a 6-year-old child who had an hsr(21) with additional 21q22 material inserted into chromosome 2q31 (10). Similar observations were also documented in other AML cases (8, 11). These findings demonstrate that there may be different cytogenomic mechanisms underlying 21q22 amplification in AML: gain of 21q22 clustering on chromosome 21 and/or the presence of multiple derivative chromosomes harboring the 21q22 segment.

The microarray study of Patient 1 showed high-copy-number gain (~ 3–6 copies) of the 21q22 segment (11.9 Mb, chr21:36,230,819 − 48,100,155) covering the 5’ portion of the RUNX1 locus compared to the smaller low-copy-number gain of the 21q22 segment in the 3’ portion of RUNX1 (~ 3 copies, 502.1 kb, chr21: 35,726,226 − 36,228,360). There was no loss of distal 21q22 as frequently observed in iAMP21 B-ALL (18). A similar observation was reported by Nguyen and colleagues who described an AML patient with 21q22 amplification covering a portion of the 5’ region of RUNX1 and extending to 21q terminus, albeit with different breakpoints than the ones observed in our patient (12). In their microarray analysis of 33 AML cases with 21q22 amplification, defined as six or more copies of ERG by FISH, Weber and colleagues reported the ERG locus as the commonly amplified 21q22 region while the RUNX1 locus was amplified in only about half of the cases (13). This is further supported by the observation that RUNX1 expression is not upregulated in AML with amplified RUNX1 identified by RUNX1 FISH (9). Our report is the second study to show that 21q22 amplification identified by RUNX1 FISH does not cover the entire RUNX1 locus (12) and the ERG locus is within the high-copy-number gain region. The RUNX1 FISH approach is likely to lead to an underestimation of the incidence of 21q22 amplification in AML because it would not identify those cases that do not involve the RUNX1 locus. Xie et. al reported a prevalence of 0.1% using RUNX1 FISH to ascertain 21q22 amplification in their AML cohort and using the same approach, we found a frequency of 0.2% in our AML cohort, while Weber et al. described a higher prevalence of 0.7% using ERG FISH (13, 14).

ERG encodes a proto-oncogenic transcription factor expressed in hematopoietic stem cells including those present in AML and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (20). ERG overexpression has been shown to be an adverse predictor for cytogenetically normal AML (21, 22). Moreover, Carmichael and colleagues showed that Erg overexpression in mice induced the development of a erythro-megakaryocytic leukemia (23). Weber et al. demonstrated that ERG overexpression is correlated with ERG high-copy-number gain, indicating that amplification may result in upregulation of ERG expression (13). RUNX1 truncating and frameshift mutations have been reported in myeloid neoplasms, supporting its role as a tumor suppressor (24). Co-existence of RUNX1 aberrations and ERG amplification was observed in 20% of AML cases with 21q22 amplification (13). However, whether the RUNX1 aberration cooperates with ERG amplification to promote AML leukemogenesis remains to unclear at the present time. Taken together, results from our study and others indicate that genomic rearrangements underlying 21q22 amplification in AML may differ from iAMP21 in B-ALL. Therefore, we propose that gain of five copies or more of 21q22 in AML be described as “21q22 amplification” to distinguish it from iAMP21 in B-ALL. Studies using high resolution genomic approaches such as chromosomal microarray and whole genome sequencing would enable better assessment of the prevalence and genetic features of 21q22 amplification in AML.

Previous molecular genetic studies revealed that mutant TP53 is common in AML with 21q22 amplification and accordingly, Patient 1 in our study also harbored dual TP53 mutations (8, 14). Nguyen et al. similarly found a TP53 deletion detected by FISH in an AML patient with 21q22 amplification (12). TP53 plays a role in maintaining genomic stability and has been linked to chromothripsis (25), therefore, it may be an early event that promotes 21q22 amplification.

So far, there is limited information on clinical characteristics and outcomes in AML with 21q22 amplification (7, 9, 10, 14). In this study, two patients were young adults of 26 and 32 years at diagnosis, respectively, and the third patient was 77 years old. A highly complex karyotype with multiple clones was observed in two patients who had a prior history of malignancy. Our results concur with other reports which describe 21q22 amplification in patients with t-AML (8, 12, 14). Of the limited number of 21q22 amplified AML patients whose clinical outcomes were available, most had inferior outcomes with median survival of 3.2 months reported in one study (14). In the present study, two patients did not survive beyond 1.5 and 11 months, respectively, and the third who elected palliative care died within 2 weeks of diagnosis. Because TP53 aberrations and complex karyotypes are known adverse risk features for AML (26, 27), additional studies of larger cohorts are necessary to further determine whether 21q22 amplified AML is a new AML entity with poor outcomes or just a secondary/passenger biomarker for adverse prognosis as a result of co-existence of a complex karyotype or TP53 aberrations.

Our study has several limitations. First, this is a small cohort of three patients with a very rare cytogenetic abnormality in AML, rendering it difficulty to adequate assess whether 21q22 amp as a poor prognostic factor independent from other known cytogenetic risk features in AML including complex karyotype and chromosome 7 abnormalities present in 2 of 3 our patients. Second, we were not able to perform gene expression studies on the ERG gene due to the lack of materials. Third, molecular genetic information was available only one patient, and lastly, high resolution genomic analysis of 21q22 amp using chromosomal microarray was performed on one case again due to the lack of materials. Future large international collaborations are necessary to further characterize the genomic features, role in leukemogenesis and impact of outcomes of 21q22 amp in AML.

In summary, we report the cytogenomic features, histopathologic findings, and clinical outcomes in three adult AML patients with 21q22 amplification. Our results show that AML with 21q22 amplification is associated with a complex karyotype, poor prognosis, and occurs in both de novo AML and t-AML. 21q22 amplification may result from either a cluster on a single chromosome in the form of hsr(21) or multiple 21q22 rearrangements scattered across different chromosomes. Findings from this study support that the RUNX1 locus is not a primary target of 21q22 amplification in AML, suggesting that the genomic features underlying 21q22 amplification in AML may be different than those seen in iAMP21 B-ALL.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board has determined this as a chart review case study and granted wavier of informed consent based on its policy.

Competing Interests

Emily M. Kudalkar, Changlee Pang, Mary M. Haag, Daniel A. Pollyea, Gang Xu, Billie Carstens, Karen Swisshelm and Liming Baodeclare they have no competing interests.

Manali Kamdar reports research funding from TG Therapeutics, Genentech, Novartis;

Consultancy from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/ Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC therapeutics, Beigene; Speaker's bureau for SeaGen and DMC for Celgene, Genentech. Meng Su is a current salaried employee of Sema4 and was formerly at the University of Colorado while this manuscript was in preparation.

Funding

This study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute through the Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA046934).

Authors contributions

E.M.K collected and interpreted reported data and microarray analysis. E.M.K also wrote and revised the manuscript and assisted in creation of figures and tables. L.B. directed the study, wrote and revised the manuscript, and interpreted and reported the patient results. B.C. assisted in revisions and created figures. M.M.H., K.S., and M.S. interpreted and reported the patient results and assisted in revisions. G.X. interpreted and reported patient results. C.P. interpreted and reported patient results and contributed to manuscript writing and revisions. D.P. and M.K. provided patient care and assisted in revisions.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the staff at the Colorado Genetics Laboratory of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus for their technical expertise.

Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, Gaidzik VI, Paschka P, Roberts ND, et al. Genomic Classification and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209–21.
Dohner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, Amadori S, Appelbaum FR, Buchner T, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129(4):424–47.
Grimwade D, Walker H, Oliver F, Wheatley K, Harrison C, Harrison G, 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(7):2322–33.
Shallis RM, Wang R, Davidoff A, Ma X, Zeidan AM. Epidemiology of acute myeloid leukemia: Recent progress and enduring challenges. Blood Rev. 2019;36:70–87.
Thomas L, Stamberg J, Gojo I, Ning Y, Rapoport AP. Double minute chromosomes in monoblastic (M5) and myeloblastic (M2) acute myeloid leukemia: two case reports and a review of literature. Am J Hematol. 2004;77(1):55–61.
Tang G, DiNardo C, Zhang L, Ravandi F, Khoury JD, Huh YO, et al. MLL gene amplification in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes is associated with characteristic clinicopathological findings and TP53 gene mutation. Hum Pathol. 2015;46(1):65–73.
Streubel B, Valent P, Lechner K, Fonatsch C. Amplification of the AML1(CBFA2) gene on ring chromosomes in a patient with acute myeloid leukemia and a constitutional ring chromosome 21. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2001;124(1):42–6.
Andersen MK, Christiansen DH, Pedersen-Bjergaard J. Amplification or duplication of chromosome band 21q22 with multiple copies of the AML1 gene and mutation of the TP53 gene in therapy-related MDS and AML. Leukemia. 2005;19(2):197–200.
Burillo-Sanz S, Vargas MT, Morales-Camacho RM, Caballero-Velazquez T, Sanchez J, Garcia-Lozano JR, et al. RUNX1 amplification in AML with myelodysplasia-related changes and ring 21 chromosomes. Hematol Oncol. 2017;35(4):894–9.
Jain H, Shetty D, Roy Moulik N, Narula G, Subramanian PG, Banavali S. A novel case of intrachromosomal amplification and insertion of RUNX1 on derivative chromosome 2 in pediatric AML. Cancer Genet. 2021;254–255:65 – 9.
Moosavi SA, Sanchez J, Adeyinka A. Marker chromosomes are a significant mechanism of high-level RUNX1 gene amplification in hematologic malignancies. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2009;189(1):24–8.
Nguyen D, Li Y, Safah H, Brown TC. RUNX1 deletion/amplification in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia: A case report and review of the literature. Cancer Genet. 2019;238:37–43.
Weber S, Haferlach C, Jeromin S, Nadarajah N, Dicker F, Noel L, et al. Gain of chromosome 21 or amplification of chromosome arm 21q is one mechanism for increased ERG expression in acute myeloid leukemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2016;55(2):148–57.
Xie W, Xu J, Hu S, Li S, Wang W, Cameron Yin C, et al. iAMP21 in acute myeloid leukemia is associated with complex karyotype, TP53 mutation and dismal outcome. Mod Pathol. 2020;33(7):1389–97.
McGowan-Jordan J SAaSM. ISCN 2016: an international system for human cytogenomic nomenclature: Basel: Karger; 2016 2016.
Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, Kulkarni S, Lindeman NI, Roy S, et al. Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19(1):4–23.
Rand V, Parker H, Russell LJ, Schwab C, Ensor H, Irving J, et al. Genomic characterization implicates iAMP21 as a likely primary genetic event in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2011;117(25):6848–55.
Li Y, Schwab C, Ryan S, Papaemmanuil E, Robinson HM, Jacobs P, et al. Constitutional and somatic rearrangement of chromosome 21 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nature. 2014;508(7494):98–102.
Robinson HM, Harrison CJ, Moorman AV, Chudoba I, Strefford JC. Intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) may arise from a breakage-fusion-bridge cycle. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2007;46(4):318–26.
Loughran SJ, Kruse EA, Hacking DF, de Graaf CA, Hyland CD, Willson TA, et al. The transcription factor Erg is essential for definitive hematopoiesis and the function of adult hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(7):810–9.
Marcucci G, Baldus CD, Ruppert AS, Radmacher MD, Mrozek K, Whitman SP, et al. Overexpression of the ETS-related gene, ERG, predicts a worse outcome in acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9234–42.
Marcucci G, Maharry K, Whitman SP, Vukosavljevic T, Paschka P, Langer C, et al. High expression levels of the ETS-related gene, ERG, predict adverse outcome and improve molecular risk-based classification of cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(22):3337–43.
Carmichael CL, Metcalf D, Henley KJ, Kruse EA, Di Rago L, Mifsud S, et al. Hematopoietic overexpression of the transcription factor Erg induces lymphoid and erythro-megakaryocytic leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(38):15437–42.
Sood R, Kamikubo Y, Liu P. Role of RUNX1 in hematological malignancies. Blood. 2017;129(15):2070–82.
Rucker FG, Dolnik A, Blatte TJ, Teleanu V, Ernst A, Thol F, et al. Chromothripsis is linked to TP53 alteration, cell cycle impairment, and dismal outcome in acute myeloid leukemia with complex karyotype. Haematologica. 2018;103(1):e17-e20.
Stengel A, Kern W, Haferlach T, Meggendorfer M, Fasan A, Haferlach C. The impact of TP53 mutations and TP53 deletions on survival varies between AML, ALL, MDS and CLL: an analysis of 3307 cases. Leukemia. 2017;31(3):705–11.
Rucker FG, Schlenk RF, Bullinger L, Kayser S, Teleanu V, Kett H, et al. TP53 alterations in acute myeloid leukemia with complex karyotype correlate with specific copy number alterations, monosomal karyotype, and dismal outcome. Blood. 2012;119(9):2114–21.

Table 2 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

Competing interest reported. Emily M. Kudalkar, Changlee Pang, Mary M. Haag, Daniel A. Pollyea, Gang Xu, Billie Carstens, Karen Swisshelm and Liming Bao declare they have no competing interests. Manali Kamdar reports research funding from TG Therapeutics, Genentech, Novartis; Consultancy from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/ Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC therapeutics, Beigene; Speaker's bureau for SeaGen and DMC for Celgene, Genentech. Meng Su is a current salaried employee of Sema4 and was formerly at the University of Colorado while this manuscript was in preparation.

Table2MolCytosubmission.pdf

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
27 May, 2022
Reviews received at journal
23 May, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
11 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
09 May, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
09 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
09 May, 2022
First submitted to journal
06 May, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Cytogenomic profiling and clinical correlation of 21q22 amplification in acute myeloid leukemia reveal distinct cytogenomic features and poor outcomes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1