4.7 Article

The role of minor subpopulations within the leukemic blast compartment of AML patients at initial diagnosis in the development of relapse

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1313-1320

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2011.383

关键词

'Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute'; recurrence; subpopulation; leukemic stem cells; mutation; genetic instability

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [VU 2005-3666]
  2. Stichting KiKa/Children Cancer-free
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  4. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of pediatric and younger adult (<60 years) AML patients achieve complete remission. However, 30-40% of patients relapse and display a dismal outcome. Recently we described a frequent instability of type I/II mutations between diagnosis and relapse. Here, we explored the hypothesis that these mutational shifts originate from clonal selection during treatment/disease progression. Subfractions of blasts from initial diagnosis samples were cell sorted and their mutational profiles were compared with those of the corresponding relapse samples of 7 CD34(+) AML patients. At diagnosis, subfractions of the CD45(dim)CD34(+)CD38(dim/-) compartment were heterogeneous in the distribution of mutations, when compared to the whole CD45(dim)CD34(+) blast compartment in 6 out of 7 patients. Moreover, within CD45dimCD34_CD38dim/- fraction of initial samples of 5 of these 6 AML patients, we found evidence for the presence of a minor, initially undetected subpopulation with a specific mutational profile that dominated the bulk of leukemic blasts at relapse. In conclusion, our findings lend support to the AML oligoclonality concept and provide molecular evidence for selection and expansion of a chemo-resistant subpopulation towards development of relapse. These results imply that early detection of pre-existing drug-resistant leukemic subpopulations is crucial for relapse prevention by proper timing of targeted treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据