Variable outcome and methylation status according to CEBPA mutant type in double-mutated acute myeloid leukemia patients and the possible implications for treatment

CEBPA mutations in acute myeloid leukemia: implications in risk stratification and treatment

Mutations in CCAAT enhancer binding protein α (CEBPA) occur in approximately 10% of patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Emerging evidence supports that in-frame mutations in the basic leucine zipper domain of CEBPA (CEBPAbZIP-inf) confer a survival benefit, and CEBPAbZIP-inf replaced CEBPA double mutations (CEBPAdm) as a unique entity in the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO-2022) classification and International Consensus Classification (ICC). However, challenges remain in daily clinical practice since more than 30% patients with CEBPAbZIP-inf die of AML despite intensive treatment. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the heterogeneities observed in AML with CEBPAdm and CEBPAbZIP-inf, and will discuss the prognostic implications of concurrent mutations and novel mechanistic targets that may inform future drug development. The ultimate goal is to optimize clinical management and to provide precision medicine for this category of patients.

C/EBPα-p30 confers AML cell susceptibility to the terminal unfolded protein response and resistance to Venetoclax by activating DDIT3 transcription

BACKGROUND

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with biallelic (CEBPAbi) as well as single mutations located in the bZIP region is associated with a favorable prognosis, but the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. Here, we propose that two isoforms of C/EBPα regulate DNA damage-inducible transcript 3 (DDIT3) transcription in AML cells corporately, leading to altered susceptibility to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and related drugs.

METHODS

Human AML cell lines and murine myeloid precursor cell line 32Dcl3 cells were infected with recombinant lentiviruses to knock down CEBPA expression or over-express the two isoforms of C/EBPα. Quantitative real-time PCR and western immunoblotting were employed to determine gene expression levels. Cell apoptosis rates were assessed by flow cytometry. CFU assays were utilized to evaluate the differentiation potential of 32Dcl3 cells. Luciferase reporter analysis, ChIP-seq and ChIP-qPCR were used to validate the transcriptional regulatory ability and affinity of each C/EBPα isoform to specific sites at DDIT3 promoter. Finally, an AML xenograft model was generated to evaluate the in vivo therapeutic effect of agents.

RESULTS

We found a negative correlation between CEBPA expression and DDIT3 levels in AML cells. After knockdown of CEBPA, DDIT3 expression was upregulated, resulting in increased apoptotic rate of AML cells induced by ER stress. Cebpa knockdown in mouse 32Dcl3 cells also led to impaired cell viability due to upregulation of Ddit3, thereby preventing leukemogenesis since their differentiation was blocked. Then we discovered that the two isoforms of C/EBPα regulate DDIT3 transcription in the opposite way. C/EBPα-p30 upregulated DDIT3 transcription when C/EBPα-p42 downregulated it instead. Both isoforms directly bound to the promoter region of DDIT3. However, C/EBPα-p30 has a unique binding site with stronger affinity than C/EBPα-p42. These findings indicated that balance of two isoforms of C/EBPα maintains protein homeostasis and surveil leukemia, and at least partially explained why AML cells with disrupted C/EBPα-p42 and/or overexpressed C/EBPα-p30 exhibit better response to chemotherapy stress. Additionally, we found that a low C/EBPα p42/p30 ratio induces resistance in AML cells to the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax since BCL2 is a major target of DDIT3. This resistance can be overcome by combining ER stress inducers, such as tunicamycin and sorafenib in vitro and in vivo.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that AML patients with a low C/EBPα p42/p30 ratio (e.g., CEBPAbi) may not benefit from monotherapy with BCL2 inhibitors. However, this issue can be resolved by combining ER stress inducers.

Prognostic impact of CEBPA mutational subgroups in adult AML

Despite recent refinements in the diagnostic and prognostic assessment of CEBPA mutations in AML, several questions remain open, i.e. implications of different types of basic region leucin zipper (bZIP) mutations, the role of co-mutations and the allelic state. Using pooled primary data analysis on 1010 CEBPA-mutant adult AML patients, a comparison was performed taking into account the type of mutation (bZIP: either typical in-frame insertion/deletion (InDel) mutations (bZIPInDel), frameshift InDel or nonsense mutations inducing translational stop (bZIPSTOP) or single base-pair missense alterations (bZIPms), and transcription activation domain (TAD) mutations) and the allelic state (single (smCEBPA) vs. double mutant (dmCEBPA)). Only bZIPInDel patients had significantly higher rates of complete remission and longer relapse free and overall survival (OS) compared with all other CEBPA-mutant subgroups. Moreover, co-mutations in bZIPInDel patients (e.g. GATA2, FLT3, WT1 as well as ELN2022 adverse risk aberrations) had no independent impact on OS, whereas in non-bZIPInDel patients, grouping according to ELN2022 recommendations added significant prognostic information. In conclusion, these results demonstrate bZIPInDel mutations to be the major independent determinant of outcome in CEBPA-mutant AML, thereby refining current classifications according to WHO (including all dmCEBPA and smCEBPA bZIP) as well as ELN2022 and ICC recommendations (including CEBPA bZIPms).

Sporadic and Familial Acute Myeloid Leukemia with CEBPA Mutations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

CCAAT enhancer binding protein A (CEBPA) gene mutation is one of the common genetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), which can be associated with sporadic and familial AML.

RECENT FINDINGS

Due to the recent advances in molecular testing and the prognostic role of CEBPA mutation in AML, the definition for AML with CEBPA mutation (AML-CEBPA) has significantly changed. This review provides the rationale for the updates on classifications, and the impacts on laboratory evaluation and clinical management for sporadic and familial AML-CEBPA patients. In addition, minimal residual disease assessment post therapy to stratify disease risk and stem cell transplant in selected AML-CEBPA patients are discussed. Taken together, the recent progresses have shifted the definition, identification, and management of patients with AML-CEBPA.

Updates in molecular genetics of acute myeloid leukemia

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a type of cancer caused by aggressive neoplastic proliferations of immature myeloid cells that is fatal if untreated. AML accounts for 1.0% of all new cancer cases in the United States, with a 5-year relative survival rate of 30.5%. Once defined primarily morphologically, advances in next generational sequencing have expanded the role of molecular genetics in categorizing the disease. As such, both the World Health Organization Classification of Haematopoietic Neoplasms and The International Consensus Classification System now define a variety of AML subsets based on mutations in driver genes such as NPM1, CEBPA, TP53, ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, STAG2, U2AF1, and ZRSR2. This article provides an overview of some of the genetic mutations associated with AML and compares how the new classification systems incorporate molecular genetics into the definition of AML.

Laboratory evaluation and prognostication among adults and children with CEBPA-mutant acute myeloid leukemia

CEBPA-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) encompasses clinically and biologically distinct subtypes of AML in both adults and children. CEBPA-mutant AML may occur with monoallelic (moCEBPA) or biallelic (biCEBPA) mutations, which can be somatic or germline, with each entity impacting prognosis in unique ways. BiCEBPA AML is broadly associated with a favorable prognosis, but differences in the type and location of CEBPA mutations as well as the presence of additional leukemogenic mutations can lead to heterogeneity in survival. Concurrent FLT3-ITD mutations have a well-documented negative effect on survival in adult biCEBPA AML, whereas support for a negative prognostic effect of mutations in TET2, DNMT3A, WT1, CSF3R, ASXL1, and KIT is mixed. NPM1 and GATA2 mutations may have a positive prognostic impact. MoCEBPA AML has similar survival outcomes compared to AML with wild-type CEBPA, and risk stratification is determined by other cytogenetic and molecular findings. Germline CEBPA mutations may lead to familial biCEBPA AML after acquisition of second somatic CEBPA mutation, with variable penetrance and age. BiCEBPA AML in children is likely a favorable-risk diagnosis as it is in adults, but the role of a single CEBPA mutation and the impact of concurrent leukemogenic mutations are not clear in this population. Laboratory evaluation of the CEBPA gene includes PCR-based fragment-length analysis, Sanger sequencing, and next-generation sequencing. Phenotypic analysis using multiparameter flow cytometry can also provide additional data in evaluating CEBPA, helping to assess for the likelihood of mutation presence.

CEBPA Mutations in 4708 Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia - Differential Impact of bZIP and TAD Mutations on Outcome

Biallelic mutations of the CEBPA gene (CEBPAbi) define a distinct entity associated with favorable prognosis, however the role of monoallelic mutations (CEBPAsm) is poorly understood. We retrospectively analyzed 4708 adult AML patients recruited into Study Alliance Leukemia trials to investigate the prognostic impact of CEBPAsm. CEBPA mutations were identified in 240 patients (5.1%), 131 CEBPAbi and 109 CEBPAsm (60 affecting the amino-terminal transactivation domains (CEBPAsmTAD) and 49 the carboxy-terminal DNA-binding or basic leucine zipper region (CEBPAsmbZIP)). Interestingly, CEBPAbi and CEBPAsmbZIP patients shared several clinical factors, i.e. were significantly younger (median 46 years and 50 years) and had higher WBC counts at diagnosis (median 23.7 and 35.7 109/l) compared to CEBPAsmTAD patients (median age 63 yrs., median WBC 13.1 109/l; p<.001). Co-mutations were also similar in both groups, e.g. GATA2 mutations (35.1% CEBPAbi; 36.7% CEBPAsmbZIP vs. 6.7% CEBPAsmTAD; p<.001) or NPM1 mutations (3.1% CEBPAbi; 8.2% CEBPAsmbZIP vs. 38.3% CEBPAsmTAD; p<.001). CEBPAbi and CEBPAsmbZIP, but not CEBPAsmTAD were associated with significantly improved overall (median OS: 103 and 63 vs. 13 months) and event-free survival (median EFS: 20.7 and 17.1 vs. 5.7 months), in univariate and multivariable analyses. More detailed analysis revealed that the clinical and molecular features as well as the favorable survival were confined to patients showing in-frame mutations in bZIP (CEBPAbZIP-inf). When grouping patients into CEBPAbZIP-inf and CEBPAother (including CEBPAsmTAD and other non-CEBPAbZIP-inf patients), only CEBPAbZIP-inf patients showed superior CR rates and the longest median OS and EFS, arguing for a previously undefined prognostic role of this type of mutations.

Novel insights of acute myeloid leukemia with CEBPA deregulation: Heterogeneity dissection and re-stratification

Acute myeloid leukemia with bi-allelic CEBPA mutation was categorized as an independent disease entity with favorable prognosis, however, recent researches have revealed huge heterogeneity within this disease group, and for some patients, relapse remained a major cause of treatment failure. Further risk stratification is essentially needed. Here by reviewing the latest literature, we summarized the characteristics of CEBPA mutation profiles and clinical features, with a special intention of dissecting the heterogeneity within the seemingly homogeneous AML with bi-allelic CEBPA mutations. Specifically, non-classical CEBPA mutation, miscellaneous companion genetic aberrations and the presence of germline CEBPA mutation are three major sources of heterogeneity. Identifying these factors can help us predict patients at a higher risk of relapse, for whom aggressive treatment may be recommended. Novel therapeutic approaches regarding manipulating potentially druggable targets as well as the debate over post remission consolidation regimens has also been discussed.