RESISTENSI OBAT PADA ANAK-ANAK DENGAN LEKEMIA LIMFOBLAS AKUT ( DRUG RESISTANCE IN CHILDHOOD ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA ) IDG. Ugrasena Divisi Hematologi Lab/SMF Ilmu Kesehatan Anak FK. Unair/RSUD Dr. Soetomo
Keberhasilan pengobatan dengan kemoterapi tergantung pada 2 hal yaitu: sel kanker harus dapat dijangkau oleh konsentrasi obat yang cukup ( faktor farmakokinetik ) dan sel kanker harus cukup sensitif terhadap kemoterapi yang digunakan ( faktor resistensi obat ). Ada beberapa mekanisme resistensi: obat tidak ditranfer kedalam sel melalui membrane sel, obat mengalami detoksifikasi intraseluler, atau obat tidak mencapai DNA. Beberapa
resistensi obat bisa terjadi oleh karena bekerja sebagai pompa toksin sehingga konsentrasi obat intra seluler menurun. Saai ini resistensi sel leukemi terhadapa beberapa sitostatika dapat ditentukan secara in vitro. Derajat resistensi sangat berguna menentukan prognosis. Sebagian besar faktor prognosis yang sudah dikenal selama ini dapat diterangkan lewat pemeriksaan resistensi obat ini ( pemeriksaan MTT ). Sebagai contoh yaitu penderita LLA hiperdiploid yang dikenal prognosanya baik, hal ini disebabkan karena sel ini sensitif dengan obat 6-MP demikian pula obat anti metabolit lainnya. Usia lebih dari 10 tahun atau kurang dari 1 tahun dikenal prognosisnya buruk karena resisten terhadap steroid.
Abstract Success of chemotherapy depends upon two factors: the malignant cells must be reached by sufficient drug concentration ( pharmacokinetic factors ) and the cells must be sufficiently sensitive to drug used ( drug resistance factors ). The mechanisms of drug resistance are manifolds: cells may not transport drugs over the cell membrane, drug may be detoxified intracellularly, or may be segregated in vesicles, or may not reached the nuclear DNA. Some of the drug resistance act as a pump for toxin, thus lowering the concentration of drug inside the cell.
The resistance of leukemic cells to various cytostatic drugs can be measured in vitro. The degree of resistance is very powerful prognostic factors. Most other prognostic factors are actually explained by drug resistance. For examples, hyperdiploid ALL has very good prognosis because the cells are very sensitive to 6MP and other anti metabolites, and also worse prognosis of children over 10 or under 1.5 year of age result from resistance to steroid.
INTRODUCTION. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ( ALL ) is the most frequently occurring type of cancer in children constituting 25% - 30 % of all childhood malignancies1. The results of chemotherapy in childhood ALL have markedly improved during the past decades2,3. The remission rate of patients treated with chemotherapy is more than 95%, and the long term disease- free survival rate about 75 – 80%. In spite of the excellent results 25 – 30 % of the patients will experience a relapse with poor prognosis. This treatment failure may be explained by unfavourable pharmacokinetics, regrowth potential of the residual leukemic cells and by cellular drug resistance3,4. Although the prognosis of children with newly diagnosed ALL has improved greatly with the use of current combination chemotherapy, in less privileged countries, the results are less good, although progress is being made. In Child health Department Dr. Soetomo Hospital, ALL patients who are being treated by WK (Wijaya Kusuma)-ALL 2000 protocol for ALL , 87 % achieved complete remission, 30 % relapsed during the treatment, 40% were drop out and 28.5 % died. Because treatment with cytotoxic drugs is not always curative in children with ALL and sometimes accompanied by severe side effects, there is still need for improvement of the results of chemotherapy. Since cellular drug resistance is an important determinant of clinical outcome after chemotherapy, drug resistance studies have to be done to further improve the therapy. In our country there is very limited information or study on ALL including drug resistance in relation to the successfulness of treatment.
Prognostic factors The identification of prognostic factors has become an essential element in the design and analysis of current therapeutic protocols in ALL. Prognostic factors used for risk group
classification are partly based on clinical and cell biological patient features, such as sex, age, leukemic cell burden at diagnosis, immunophenotype, and chromosomal abnormalities1,2,5. The biologic explanation of the prognostic significance of these features is unclear, but is often assumed to be related to cellular drug resistance5. The initial white blood cell count (WBC) is the single most important conventional predictor of clinical outcome for remission induction, duration of remission, and long-term survival. There is a linear relationship between the initial leukocyte counts and outcome in children with ALL. Children with high leukocyte count tend to have a worse prognosis. Although there is no sharp dividing line, patients with an initial leukocyte count more than 50.000 cells / mm3 blood are prognosis
universally recognized as having
a particularly poor
The best continuous complete remission (CCR) was achieved by the 30 % of patients who had an initial WBC of less than 5000 cells/mm3 blood, but the worst survival experience was exhibited by those with initial WBC from 100.000 – 200.000 cells/mm3 blood5. However in another study as reported by Wald et al, the incidence of early death between hyperleukocytic and non hyperleukocytic patient with ALL was not statistically different75. Mediastinal masses have a strong association with the WBC5,8,9, and its presence is not an independent prognostic factor as it is associated with other adverse presenting features including male sex and high leucocytes count76. Males have a less favourable prognosis than females, demonstrated in several childhood ALL studies8,9,10. Age is a well established prognostic factor in childhood ALL8. Children younger than 18 months have the worst prognosis5,11. Leukemia in these children is characterized by a high tumor load, but also by a high incidence of the prognostically unfavorable pro B phenotype11. Patients older than 10 years have a poor prognosis and children with an intermediate age have the best prognosis5,6,12. Immunophenotype is one of the prognostic factors in children with ALL. B-ALL cases had the worst prognosis although this has improved now while patients with B-cell precursor ALL have the most favourable prognosis. Among the patient with B–cell precursor ALL, those with the early pre B–cell phenotype have a more favourable prognosis compared with patients with pro B–cell phenotype, who have a relatively poor prognosis13. T cell ALL is usually associated with male sex , high WBC count, mediastinal mass, and central nervous system (CNS) infiltration, and formerly had a poor outcome in children2,14. Shuster et al15, reported that childhood T-cell ALL with WBC > 50.000/mm3 blood had a poorer outcome
compared with the group with a WBC < 50.000/mm3. Crist et al, in a larger number of patients found that the high risk features formerly ascribed to pre-B-cell ALL are closely associated with the t (1;19): i.e., increased leukocyte count16. Parts of these findings are still controversial because in one study the immunophenotype is related to other clinical and biological features like WBC and organomegaly. Patients with > 50 chromosomes per leukemic cell account for about one fourth of childhood ALL cases and have proved to have more durable responses to treatment compared with non hyperdiploid cases17,18,19,77. Especially, DNA hyperploidy is associated with favourable prognosis in B- lineage ALL19. The frequency of hyperdiploidy , is highest in cases of CD 10+ early pre-B ALL whereas pseudodiploidy is present in the majority of patients with CD10 – early pre-B ALL and in virtually all cases of B-cell ALL19. Some authors reported that the persistence of circulating leukemic blast cells ( > 1.000/µL blood ) or otherwise measured slow early response after 1 week of single or multiagent remission induction chemotherapy was an important early predictor of worse prognosis20,21,22,23. A number of clinical characteristics and cell biological features as described above has prognostic significance in childhood ALL, and are summarised in the table. These features are especially related to the occurrences of relapses. Relapsed ALL has a poor prognosis, with a cure rate of less than 30%.
Table 1. Factors with prognostic significance in childhood ALL.
_____________________________________________________________________ Category better prognosis poor prognosis _____________________________________________________________________ WBC at diagnosis Age Sex Immunophenotype Ploidy Cytogenetics In vitro drug resistance Circulating blasts at day 8 BM blast at day 8 or 15 Complete remission after induction chemotherapy achieved not achieved < 50.000 cells/mm3 18 Mo-10 years female common, pre-B cell hyperploidy t ( 12;21 ) sensitive <1000/mm3 blood < 25% >50. 000 cells/mm3 <18 Mo or > 10 year male pro-B, T cell non hyperploidy t ( 4;11), t (9;22 ) resistance >1000/mm3 blood > 25%
As mentioned previously, the prognostic significance of these factors may partly be caused by cellular drug resistance, which can be measured in vitro. There are many different assays to asses the chemosensitivity of leukemia cells. Clonogenic assays in acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) patients have successfully been used to predict initial response to chemotherapy24,25,26. A good correlation between in vivo and in vitro results has been demonstrated in a limited number of patients, using the differential staining cytotoxicity (DiSC) assay and it was possible to distinguish between responders and non-responders to initial treatment in ALL27. The significant correlations between in vitro resistance of the leukemic cells measured with the MTT ( 3-4[ 4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl ]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay and the clinical response showed that these cells play an important role in the clinical situation28,29,30,31,48,51. The MTT assay has also been used to detect differences between relapsed ALL cells ( significantly more resistant to several drugs ) and ALL cells obtained at initial diagnosis30,32,33. ALL subgroups as defined by age and immunophenotype and DNA ploidy revealed specific in vitro drug resistance profiles34,35. As mentioned above clinical pharmacokinetic factors are also related to treatment failure, for example poor compliance, serum protein binding of drug, drug clearance and antibodies to asparaginase4. Theoretically, the use of pharmacokinetic principles to individualize drug dosage so as to achieve targeted blood concentrations should minimize both the likelihood of undertreatment and probability of drug toxicities. In 1984, Evans et al studied the relapse rate of 108 children with ALL who received maintenance therapy with intermediate-dose methotrexate (MTX) 1000 mg/m2 or standard therapy with cranial radiation and oral MTX/6-mercaptopurine (6-MP)36. They found the clearance of MTX to be an independent variable for predicting a relapse that occurred in 22 of the children. Pinkel et al in 1971, demonstrated a relationship between prescribed dosage and efficacy of ALL maintenance therapy, with children given half dosages of 6-MP, vincristine (VCR), cyclophosphamide, and MTX having significantly worse clinical responses37. One of the other causes of treatment failure is the regrowth potential of minimal residual leukemic cells. If the courses of treatment do not kill all of the malignant cells present, then the behaviour of the cells which survived treatment will play a role in determining the actual effect of the treatment38. A number of studies in childhood ALL has now shown that detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow during or at the end of induction, or during the first few months of treatment, provides information of strong
prognostic value39,40,41,42,49. Control of the immune system may play a role over these residual leukemic cells. The persistence of small numbers of leukemic cells well into the clinical course is an important feature of childhood ALL, but not a focus in this study.
Cellular drug resistance. There are several well established indicators of prognosis including sex, age at initial presentation, presenting peripheral blood white cell count and immunophenotype. Since recently the resistance of leukemic cells to various cytostatic drugs can be measured in vitro and the degree of resistance is a very powerful prognostic factor. Most other prognostic factors are actually explained by drug resistance28,29,30,31,33,35,43,44,45,46,47,48,50. To the best of our knowledge, no information is available on drug resistance in childhood leukemia in Indonesia; therefore we will study that in this thesis.
Drug resistance assay. Since thirty to fourty years various attempts have been made to develop in
vitro chemosensitivity assays with respect to a relevance for clinical practice. Clonogenic assays have long been considered to be the golden standard for in-vitro chemosensitivity testing. They, however have a number of drawbacks. Firstly, the number of patient samples of which the leukemic cells will be clonogenic in vitro is limited, especially in ALL samples. Secondly, the drug effect is measured on a small proportion of cells, i.e. those cells that can be induced to proliferation in vitro, and not on cells that are non dividing or resting at that time. Practical disadvantages are that these assays are very time consuming and laborious. These drawbacks therefore make clonogenic assays less suitable for its use in ALL patients and are the reason that in vitro drug resistance studies in ALL were not performed until 10-15 years ago50,51. Only with the recent introduction of short – term, non clonogenic assays, an increasing number of authors has been studying cellular drug resistance in childhood leukemia51. Examples of these assays are the colorimetric tetrazolium based assays such as the MTT and INT assay4,52, DiSC assay53, and the fluorometric microculture cytotoxicity assay (FMCA)54. The DiSC assay relies on the intactness of the cell membrane in living cells as opposed to dead cells after several days of incubation with drugs. Relatively low numbers of cells are needed to test a range of drugs in different concentrations. A main advantage of this assay is that it can discriminate between malignant and non-malignant cells, in contrast to the MTT assay and FMCA. However, the DiSC assay has the disadvantages of being
subjective, laborious, and time consuming, which makes it less suited for large-scale patient studies51. These short–term assays, especially the MTT assay and FMCA, are rapid and objective because they need only 2 – 4 days of culture and are semi-automated. MTT assay and FMCA need relatively homogenous leukemic cell
populations., which is almost
always the case in newly diagnosed childhood ALL . One should use the MTT assay only for samples with at least 70% malignant cells determined cytomorphologically at the start of the assay. In 1983 Mossman described the MTT assay which relies on the demonstration of living cells by their ability to convert a soluble tetrazolium salt into an insoluble formazan. The formazan precipitate is purple and can be dissolved and the extinction read on a 96-well microplate reader (ELISA reader)51. The MTT assay is a rapid and objective cell culture drug resistance assay, and appeared to be an independent and strong predictor of both short-tem response to therapy and long-term survival. The MTT assay is very suitable for assessing chemosensitivity in acute leukemia31,44. This assay will be used to study leukemic sample in this thesis. All of these assays have the disadvantage that MTX cytotoxicity can not be determined55,56, No dose dependent cytotoxic effect of MTX upon ALL cells derived from patients, has been described in the literature using short-term total cell kill assay. This can be explained by the fact that ALL cells are difficult to culture. In four days culture the mean control cell survival of ALL cells without adding any drug is about 65 %55. This means that a relatively large amount of ALL cells is spontaneously dying. Nucleosides and bases such a thymidine and hypoxanthine and folate, that are released by these cells probably salvage the remaining cells from MTX cytotoxicity56.
Cellular drug resistance in relation to clinical and cell biological features Clinical and cell biological features are well known as conventional prognostic factors in childhood ALL, but how this is caused is not well understood. Many experts in this field have studied the correlation between these factors and in vitro drug resistance determined by the MTT assay. Age is well established prognostic factor in childhood ALL. A recent report shows that infant ALL cells are in vitro highly resistant to glucocorticoid (GC) and L-asparaginase (L-asp). This is in agreement with the poor outcome of infants with ALL and with the fact that in vitro resistance to these drugs was associated with poor outcome in ALL30,31,48. Pieters et al in 1993, reported that ALL cells from children <18 month were more resistant to prednisolone (PRD), and daunorubicin (DNR) and that ALL cells from children >
10 years were more resistant to PRD than those in the intermediate age group (18 month - 10 years)50. The same author in 1998 found that infants < 1,5 years were significantly more resistance to PRD and L-asp but significantly more sensitive to cytarabine (ara-C) compared to the intermediate age group34. In contrast Hongo et al, did not find a relation between age and cellular drug resistance to the four drug : dexamethasone (DXM), PRD, L-asp and VCR30. There was generally no significant difference between female and male in drug resistance35,48. However samples of female patients were significant resistant to ara-C and mercaptopurine (6-MP) than the male samples35. WBC at initial diagnosis was no significant relation with drug resistance30,35. However patients with a WBC of < 10 x 109 l-1 were more resistant to ara-C than patients with a WBC 10-50 x 109 l-1 (35). There were no significant differences in drug resistance between FAB classification L1 cases and FAB classification L2 cases, nor within the total childhood ALL group, nor within the group of c-ALL and pre B –ALL patients35. In general, pro B and T ALL samples were more drug resistant than the group of c ALL and pre B ALL samples35. Rots et al, reported that T-ALL samples were 3.4 fold more resistant to MTX compared with c/pre-B ALL samples56. Pro B ALL samples were significantly more resistant to L-asp, and 6thioguanine (6-TG) but T ALL samples were significantly more resistant to PRD, DXM, VCR, L-asp, DNR than the group of cALL and pre B ALL samples35. Pieters et al, reported that which anthracyclinespro B ALL cells were significantly more resistant to GC, L-asp, 6 TG, 6 MP compared to c ALL /pre B-ALL but more sensitive to ara-C34. In contrast Hongo et al, found no relation between immunophenotype and DXM, PRD, L-asp, VCR (DPAV) sensitivity30. DNA hyperploidy is strongly and independently associated with a good prognosis in childhood ALL. The relation between DNA hyperploidy and drug resistance as reported by Kaspers et al, showed that hyperploid ALL cells were more sensitive to mercaptopurine, thioguanine, cytarabine and to L-asp than were non hyperdiploid ALL cells, but these two ploidy group did not differ significantly in resistance to PRD, DXM, VCR, DNR35. The t (12;21) translocation resulting in TEL/AML1 gene fusion was reported by Ramakers-Van Woerden et al, showed that to be associated with a high in vitro sensitivity, to L-asp but not to other drugs57.
Cellular drug resistance in relation to disease status and clinical outcome.
In vitro drug resistance in relation to disease it self and clinical outcome has been studied by several authors. Using the in situ thymidilate synthase inhibition (TSI) assay, from newly diagnosed precursor B-ALL patients58. Previously
Rots et al, reported that relapsed precursor B-ALL cells were threefold more resistant to MTX than cells obtained
Klumper et al, reported that compared with cells obtained at initial diagnosis, relapsed ALL cells were more resistant to GC, L-asp, anthracyclines and to thiopurines, whereas no resistance was observed for vinca alkaloid, cytarabine, epipodophyllotoxins33. The MTT assay provides drug resistance profiles which accurately predict the clinical outcome after chemotherapy in childhood ALL31,78. The first study of drug resistance that related initial chemosensitivity to long –term clinical outcome reported by Pieters at al, showed children with poor response to 1 week monotherapy with PRD have poor clinical outcome than those with good response to PRD48. CCR was significantly lower in patients with resistant cells than in those with sensitive cells for thioguanine, DNR and PRD. Regarding the correlation between PRD in vitro and in vivo, Kaspers et al reported that the clinically poor PRD responders to a 1 week PRD monotherapy were nearly 100-fold more resistance to PRD in vitro than clinically good responders and that increased in vitro resistance to PRD was associated with a worse long-term clinical outcome45. In 1999 Hongo et al, reported that the three drug ( PRD, L-asp, VCR ) resistant group correlated with both short-term and long-term treatment failure43. Zwaan et al, reported that AML cells were significantly more resistant than ALL cells to the following drug: GC, VCR, L-asp and anthracycline79.
Mechanisms of action and resistance Cellular drug resistance is generally recognized as an important determinant of the clinical outcome after chemotherapy. Even if optimal tumor cell exposure is achieved, a number of cellular factors may be responsible for drug resistance, which is also focus of this study. During recent years several mechanisms have been described, which will be discussed below. In general decreased transport of drug into the cell, defective intracellular
metabolism of the drug to its active compound, increased drug inactivation, enhanced cellular repair mechanisms, altered target molecules, and multidrug resistance (MDR) by increased drug efflux represent know mechanisms of chemo resistance80. In addition, resistance caused by altered cell death regulators involved in drug induced apoptosis play an important role2.
Because many drugs are used in the treatment of childhood leukemia and many factors may be responsible for resistance to each drug, it is unlikely that one single mechanism is responsible for clinical resistance to the complete treatment. The advantage of cell culture drug resistance assays as described above is that they measure the endpoint of different mechanisms of resistance, i.e, cell kill. However, to understand and modulate or circumvent resistance, studies on resistance mechanisms in patient cells are obligatory81.
Glucocorticoids The use of glucocorticoids ( GC ) in childhood leukemia dates from the late 1940`s, early 1950`s. Initially cortisone and adrenocorticotropic hormone were used, later PRD, and occasionally DXM. It became clear that this type of with response rates higher than any other single drug. The mechanism of action of GC is that GC diffuses through the cell membrane, bind to their intracellular receptor to form a complex that is activated and then translocates into the nucleus. Here it binds to DNA, finally leading to DNA fragmentation and DNA repair associated with NAD and ATP depletion resulting in cell death. The events leading to apoptosis after binding of the GC-receptor complex to DNA are essentially unknown44. However, the activity depends on the type of leukemia, ALL being much more sensitive than ANLL, and the disease status, GC being more effective in untreated patient than in patients who present with relapsed leukemia44. Despite the effectiveness of GC in ALL, these drugs are not curative when used as single agent. Since resistance to GC occurs in clinical practice, both at initial diagnosis and relapse, it is important to study resistance to this type of drugs. Several explanations can be given why the prognosis is worse in case of GC resistance: 1, lack of antileukemic effect of potentially effective GC, 2. when GC are ineffective, no favourable drug interactions are likely to occur either, 3. associated with a more general drug resistance44. Most studies focussed on the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) as a mechanism of resistance. Werner et al, described a polymorphism resulting in a superactive form of GR, corresponding to a mutation: C638G82. Patients with a low number of GR appeared resistant to a short-term course of GC and GR number greater than 8,000 sites/leukemic cell is a favourable prognostic marker46,47. Hala et al reported about a leukemic cell line in which a glucocorticoid receptor gene defect (L753V) is associated with resistance83, while Hurley et al reported glucocorticoid resistance in families with familial glucocorticoid resistance due to a point mutation in the steroid binding domain of the glucocorticoid receptor84.
drugs had marked cytotoxic activity,
L – Asparaginase ( L-Asp ) L – asparaginase is also always being used in ALL treatment protocols. L-
asp catalyzes the hydrolysis of L-asparagine to aspartic acid. Its cytotoxic effect is related to L- asparagine depletion of cells that require exogenous L-asparagine for their protein synthesis. It is assumed that elevated L-asparagine synthesis mediated by asparagine synthetase is related to L-asp resistance4. Dubbers at al reported a significantly lower asparagine synthetase activity in AML M5 and precursor B- ALL compared with AML non M5 and higher asparagine synthetase activity in T-ALL compared with blast of the B lineage85. This may at least partly explain the relatively increased sensitivity to L-
asparaginase in these AML and precursor B-cell ALL subgroups.
Methotrexate ( MTX ) MTX is one of the mostly frequently used cytostatic drugs, and has several unique features ; it has an antidote (folinic acid), and it is possible to determine MTX and MTX metabolites concentration. The mechanism of action of MTX: MTX is transported across the membrane mainly by the reduced folate carrier (RFC). Intracellularly, MTX will be polyglutamylated by folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) to MTX-polyglutamates (MTX –PGs). These MTXPGs can subsequently be broken down by folylpolyglutamate hydrolase (FPGH). MTX will inhibit DHFR (dihydrofolate reductase ), whereas MTX- PGs inhibit DHFR, TS (thymidilate synthase) and enzymes involved in the purine de novo synthesis I (PDNS)58,59. Defective transport as a mechanism of acquired MTX resistance has been studied in a small number of ALL cases. Two out of four children with relapsed ALL showed evidence of impaired uptake of MTX60. Whitehead et al in their study correlated the accumulation of MTX and formation of MTX-PGs with clinical outcome in childhood ALL61. Out of 35 children with non–T, non-B-cell ALL, those whose lymphoblasts accumulated more than 100 pmol methotrexate and 500 pmol methotrexate polyglutamates per billion cells experienced better 5-year EFS than those whose lymphoblasts did not. The same author also reported that high levels of MTXPGs were found in the hyperdiploid ALL samples62. Defects at the DHFR level have been reported by Matherly et al, in the patients with WBC less than 50 x 10 9/l blood. High level of DHFR was associated with poor outcome63. Ravindranath et al, in a preliminary study results suggested that the relationship between MTX sensitivity and MTHFR genotype64. Reduced activity of the MTHFR by the
C677T variant was associated with increased risk of higher MTX toxicity among marrow transplantation patients65.
Thiopurines 6-MP is a common antimetabolite used in the oral maintenance treatment of ALL since its introduction in 194759. 6-TG is an analogue of 6-MP and the other well known purine analogue. The mechanism of action: The thiopurine drugs have no direct anti-leukemic activity; they are prodrugs which undergo extensive intestinal and hepatic metabolism after oral dosing. The initial transformations occur along three competing routes of mercaptopurine metabolism catalysed by thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT), xanthine oxidase (XO) and hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT). 6-MP and 6-TG are analogues of respectively hypoxanthine and guanine. Both thiopurines are converted to their active nucleotide derivatives 6-thioIMP and 6-thioGMP respectively by HGPRT. 6-Thio-IMP is subsequently converted to 6-thioGMP by HGPRT. Incorporation into DNA and RNA of this nucleotide is a mechanism of toxicity of thiopurine. Beside this, 6-thioGMP and 6-thioIMP inhibit purine the novo synthesis by inhibiting phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) amidotransferase. They also affect the purine salvage pathway by inhibiting several enzymes of this pathway, such as TPMT. Nucleotidases catalyze the dephosphorylation of purine nucleotides like GMP, IMP and AMP to their corresponding nucleosides guanosine, inosine and adenosine respectively. Ecto-5’ nucleotidase (ecto-5’NT) is localized on the cell membrane with the enzymatic activity facing the external medium. Its function involves extracellular dephosphorylation of nucleotides to which cells are impermeable, into readily transported nucleosides4. The moleculer causes of resistance to 6-MP may include alteration in any factor of the enzyme system, which may be acquired or controlled by common genetic polymorphism in the case of TPMT. TPMT activity in leukemic blasts at diagnosis was significantly correlated with TPMT activity in erythrocytes before therapy. Thus, erythrocytes may serve as surrogate of leukemic cells for studies on mercaptopurine metabolism and TPMT activity in childhood ALL66. Coulthard et al, described the relationship between genotype and TPMT activity in the target of drug action, the leukemic cell. They demonstrated that TPMT activity in normal homozygotes was significantly higher than that in heterozygotes. The latter patients had a significantly increased risk of toxicity when treated with 6-MP67.
The mechanisms of action of anthracyclines are not very well described. They interact with DNA and topoisomerase II which leads to DNA strand breaks but also a direct cytotoxic effect of anthracyclines by damaging the cell membrane has been suggested4. Multi drug resistance (MDR) phenotype is the most and best described mechanism of resistance of anthracyclines. The drug efflux pump P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in the cell membrane decreases the intracellular levels of this drug , but also other pumps play a role4.
Vinca alkaloids VCR is the most common vinca alkaloid used in ALL. The known working mechanism of vinca alkaloids is that they prevent spindle formation and inhibit ribosomal RNA and protein synthesis. In addition there are other mechanisms of vinca alkaloid resistance such as alteration in cell membrane and MDR. The drug efflux pump P-gp in the cell membrane decreases the intracellular levels of this drug4.
Cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) Ara-C treatment is not applied in WK-ALL 2000 protocol, but is being used in some high risk patients in other protocols. This cytotoxic drug is transported across the cell membrane by facilitated diffusion, phosphorylated to its active metabolite ara CTP by deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) and subsequently incorporated into DNA as araCMP by DNA polymerase 4. The clinical relevance of possible mechanisms of resistance such as decreased membrane transport, decreased phosphorylation by low dCK activity, increased breakdown of araCTP by high cytidine deaminase and altered DNA polymerase, is largely unknown in childhood ALL4.
Alkylating agents Alkylating drugs are used principally for the treatment of lymphoma and pediatric solid tumors. The mechanism of resistance to alkylating agents in childhood ALL are unknown4. Glutathione (GSH) may be accelerated by glutathione S-transferase (GSTs). Significant correlation was found also between GSH levels and in vitro sensitivity to DNR, PRD and melphalan but not to mitoxantrone, VP16 and 6TG68. DNA repair is another mechanism of resistance. Recently much effort is focused on identifying novel drug targets which leads to antiCD20 and STI571. Anti-CD 20 is known as safe and shows significant clinical activity in patients with bulky relapse or refractory low grade B-cell non Hodgkin,s lymphoma69. STI571
(formerly known as CGP57148B) is an active and relatively specific inhibitor of Bcr-Abl kinase activity and has remarkable activity as a single agent treatment for CML and Philadelphia chromosome positive ALL70,71. The possible mechanisms of resistance to the drugs discussed above are given in table 24. Table 24: Drug resistance mechanisms in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Class of drug Glucocorticoids ( GC ) Suggested mechanisms Number of GC receptors (GCR) Affinity of receptor Function of receptor Nuclear translocation of the GCR complex. DNA binding of the GC R complex GCR polymorphism (?) Asparagine synthetase Membrane transport MTX polyglutamylation,and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) / folylpolyglutamate hydrolase (FPGH) Active efflux Intracellular normal folate pools Dihydrofolate reductase, Thymidylate synthase ( TS) Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase( MTHFR ) (?) Nucleoside concentration,ecto-5’ nucleotidase Cyto-5’ nucleotidase and phosphatases Phosphoribosyl pyyrophosphate (PRPP) and PRPP Amidotransferase Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) Ara CTP formation Ara C transport Ara-C and Ara-CTP deamination DNA incorporation MDR-1/P-glycoprotein Multidrug resistance related protein ( MRP ) Lung resistance protein (LRP) Topoisomerase II BCRP (breast cancer resistance protein ) Glutathione Glutathione and glutathione S-transferases DNA repair
L-Asparaginase Methotrexate ( MTX )
Cytosine arabinoside (ara-C)
Anthracylines, Vinca-alkaloids, And Epipodophyllotoxins
Modulation of resistance
Since drug resistance has a major impact on the success of chemotherapy, it is of clinical importance to identify possibilities to modulate or circumvent each type of drug resistance. Recently, some laboratory studies on modulators have been done such as N(phosphon)-acetyl-L-aspartate (PALA) modulation of ara-C resistance72, verapamil and cyclosporin in AML relapse73, meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) and 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine (5-AZA) for GC resistance74. In general, drug resistance modulation has not yet proven to be of major clinical significance.
References 1. Niemeyer CM, Sallan SE. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. In Hematology of infancy and chlidhood.edited by Nathan and Oski. Philadelphia: WB Saunders company; 1993; 2: 1249-87. 2. Gustaffson G and Lie SU. Acute leukemias. In: Cancer in children :clinical management, Voute et al, eds. Oxford NewYork; 1998: 99-118. 3. Norgaard JM, Hokland P. Biology of multiple drug resistance in acute leukemia. Int J Haematol 2000; 72: 290-7. 4. Pieters R, Klumper E, Kaspers GJL, Veerman AJP. Everything you always wanted to know about cellular drug resistance in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 1997; 25: 11-26. 5. Hammond D, Sather H, Nesbit M, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Med Pediatr Oncol 1986; 14:124-34. 6. Pullen DJ, Sullivan MP, Falletta JM, et al. Modified LSA2-L2 treatment in 53 children with E-rosette-positive T-cell leukemia: Results and prognostic factors ( A pediatric oncology group study ). Blood 1982 ; 60: 1159-68. 7. Mastrangelo R, Poplack D, Bleyer W. Report and recommendation of the Rome workshop concerning poor prognosis acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. Med Pediatr Oncol 1986; 14: 191-4. 8. Poplack DG, Reaman G. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. Pediatr Clin North Am 1988; 35: 903-32. 9. Chessels JM, Richard SM, Bailey CC, Lilleyman JS, Eden OB. Gender and treatment outcome in childhood lymphoblastic trials. Br J Haematol 1995; 89: 364-72. leukemia: report from the MRC UKALL
10. Pui C-H, Simone JV, Hancock ML, et al. Impact of three methods of treatment intensification on acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children: Long-term results of St Jude total therapy study. Leukemia 1992; 6: 150-7. 11. Crist W, Pullen, Boyett J, et al. Clinical and biologic features predict a poor
prognosis in acute lymphoid leukemia in infants: A pediatric oncology group study. Blood 1986; 67: 135-40. 12. Crist W, Boyett J, Jackson J, et al. Prognostic importance of the pre-B cell immunophenotype and other presenting features in B-lineage childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A pediatric oncology group study. Blood 1989; 74: 1252-59. 13. Gaynon PS, Lustig RH. The used of glucocorticoids in acute lymphoblastic leukemia of childhood. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1995; 17: 1-12. 14. Arico M, Basso G, Mandelli F, et al. Good steroid response in vivo predicts a favourable outcome in children with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 1995; 75: 1684-3. 15. Shuster JJ, Falletta JM, Pullen DJ, et al. Prognostic factors in childhood T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A Pediatric Oncology Group Study. Blood 1990; 75: 16673. 16. Crist W, Carrol AJ, Shuster JJ, et al. Poor prognosis of children with pre-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia is associated with the t(1;19)(q23;p13). A Pediatric Oncology Group Study. Blood 1990; 76: 117-22. 17. Look AT, Roberson PK, Williams DL, et al. Prognostic importance of blast cell DNA content in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1985: 1079-86. 18. Secker-Walker LM, Chessel JM, Stewart EL, et al. Chromosomes and other prognostic factors in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A long–term follow-up. Br J Haematol 1989; 72: 336–42. 19. Pui C-H, Crist WM, Look AT. Biology and clinical significance of cytogenetic abnormalities in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1990; 76: 1449-63. 20. Rautonen J, Hovi L, Siimes MA. Slow disappearance of peripheral blast cells: An independent risk factor indicating poor prognosis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1988; 71: 989-91. 21. Gajjar A, Ribeiro R, Hancock ML, et al. Persistence of circulating blast after 1 week of multiagent chemotherapy confers a poor prognosis in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1995; 86: 1292-95.
22. Reiter A, Schrappe M, Ludwig WD, et al. Chemotherapy in 998 unselected childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients Resultsand conclusion of the multicenter trial ALL-BFM 86. Blood 1994; 84: 3122-33. 23. Gaynon PS, Desai AA, Bostrom BC, et al. Early response to therapy and outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 1997; 80: 1717-26. 24. Preisler HD. Prediction of response to chemotherapy in acute myelocytic leukemia. Blood 1980; 56: 361-57. 25. Park CH, Amare M, Savin MA, et al. Prediction of chemotherapy response in human leukemia using an in vitro chemotherapy sensitivity test on the leukemic colony forming cells. Blood 1980; 55: 595-601. 26. Dow LW, Dahl GV, Kalwinsky DK, et al. Correlation of drug sensitivity in vitro with clinical response in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 1986; 68: 400-5. 27. Bird MC, Bonsaquet AG, and Gilby ED. In vitro determination of tumour chemosensitivity in haematological malignancies. Haematol Oncol 1985; 5:1-9. 28. Pieters R, Loonen AH, Huismans DR, et al. In vitro drug sensitivity of cells from children with leukemia using the MTT assay improved culture condition. Blood 1990: 2327-36. 29. Hwang WS, Chen LM, Huang SH, Wang CC, and Tseng MT. Prediction of chemotherapy response in human leukemia using in vitro chemosensitivity test. Leuk Res 1993; 17: 685-8. 30. Hongo T, Yajima S, Sakurai M, Horikoshi Y, Hanada R. In vitro drug sensitivity testing can predict induction failure and early relapse of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1997; 8: 2959-65. 31. Kaspers GJL, Veerman AJP, Pieters R, et al. In vitro cellular drug resistance and prognosis in newly diagnosed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1997; 90: 2723-29. 32. Pieters R, Hong T, Loonen AH, et al. Non-p-glycoprotein mediated multiple drug resistance in children with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 691-97. 33. Klumper E, Pieters R, Veerman AJP, et al. In vitro cellular drug resistance in children with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Blood 1995; 86: 3861-68. 34. Pieters R, Den Boer ML, Durian M, et al. Relation between age, immunophenotype, and in vitro drug resistance in 395 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: implication for treatment of infants. Leukemia 1998; 12: 1344-48.
35. Kaspers GJL, Smets LA, Pieters R, et al. Favourable prognosis of hyperdiploid common acute lymphoblastic leukemia may be explained by senitivity to antimetabolites and other drugs: Result of in vitro study. Blood 1995; 85: 751-56. 36. Evans WE, Crom WR, Stewart CF, et al. Methotrexate systemic clearance influences probability of relapse in children with standard risk acute lymphocytic leukemia. Lancet 1984; 1: 359-62. 37. Pinkel D, Hernandez K, Borella L. Drug dosage and remission duration in lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer 1971; 27: 247-54. 38. Preisler HD, Raza A, Hegde U, Handa H, Braun D. Regrowth resistance as a mechanism for comprehensive growth resistance and FMS expression and treatment outcome in acute myelogenous leukemia. In.Drug resistance in leukemia and lymphoma II, edited by Pieters R et al. Harwood academic publisher; Netherlands 1998: 9-18. 39. Goulden NJ, Knechtli CJC, Garland RJ, et al. Minimal residual disease analysis for the prediction of relapse in children with standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Br J Haematol 1998; 100: 235-44. 40. Van Dongen JJM, Seriu T, Panzer-Grumayer ER, et al. Prognostic value of minimal residual disease in acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. Lancet 1998; 352: 1731-38. 41. Cave H, Van der Werff Ten Bosch J, Suciu S, et al. Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Eng J Med 1998; 339: 591-8. 42. Brisco MJ, Sykes PJ, Hughes E, et al. Comparison of method for assessment of minimal residual disease in childhood B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 2001; 15: 385-90. 43. Hongo T, Yamada S, Yajima S, et al. Biological characteristic and prognostic value of in vitro three –drug resistance to prednisolone, L-asparaginase, and vincristine in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Int J Haematol 1999; 70: 268-77. 44. Kaspers GJL, Kardos G, Pieters R, et al. Different cellular drug resistance profiles in childhood lymphoblastic and non-lymphoblastic leukemia : A preliminary report. Leukemia 1994; 8: 1224-9. 45. Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, Van Zantwijk CH, et al. Prednisolone resistance in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: vitro-vivo correlation and cross-resistance to other drug . Blood 1998; 92: 259-66.
46. Kato GJ, Quddus FF, Shuster JJ, et al. High glucocorticoid receptor content of leukemic blasts is a favourable prognostic factor in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1993; 82: 2304-9. 47. Mastrangelo R, Malandrino R, Riccardi R, et al. Clinical implication of glucocorticoid receptor studies in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1980; 56: 1036-40. 48. Pieters R, Huismans DR, Loonen AH, et al. Relation of cellular drug resistance to long-term clinical outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Lancet 1991: 338-99. 49. Houstan-Smith E, Sancho J, Hancock ML, et al. Clinical importance of minimal
residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2000; 96: 269196. 50. Pieters R, Kaspers GJL, Van Wering ER, et al. Cellular drug resistance profile that might explain the prognostic value of immunophenotype and age in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 1993; 3: 392-7. 51. Veerman AJP. Drug sensitivity assay in leukemia and lymphoma.Br J Haem 1990; 74: 381-4. 52. Pieters R, Huismans DR, Leyva A, Veerman AJP. Comparison of the rapid automated MTT assay with a dye exclusion assay for chemosensitivity testing in childhood leukemia. Br J Cancer 1989; 59: 217-20. 53. Weisenthal LM, Marsden JA, Dill PL, Macaluso CK. A novel dye exclusion method for testing in vitro chemosensitivity of human tumors. Cancer Res 1983; 43: 749-57. 54. Larsson R, Nygren P, Ekberg M, Slater L. Chemotherapeutic drug sensitivity testing of human leukemia cells in vitro using a semi-automated fluorometric assay. Leukemia 1990; 4: 567-71. 55. Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, Van Zantwijk CH, et al. In vitro drug sensitivity of normal blood lymphocytes and childhood leukemic cells from bone marrow and peripheral blood. Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 469-74. 56. Rots MG, Pieters R, Kaspers GJL, et al. Differential methotrexate resistance in childhood T- versus common/pre B lymphoblastic acute leukemia can be measured by an in situ thymidilate synthetase inhibition assay, but not by MTT assay. Blood 1999; 93: 1067-74.
57. Ramakers-Van Woerden, Pieters R, Loonen AH, et al. TEL/AML1 gene fusion is related to in vitro drug sensitivity for L-asparaginase in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2000 ; 96: 1094-9. 58. Rots MG, Pieters R, Peters GJ, et al. Methotrexate resistance in relapsed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Br J Haematol 2000; 109: 629-34. 59. Bokkerink JPM, De Abreu RA. Biochemical basis for increased susceptibility for 6mercaptopurine and synergistic cytotoxicity after treatment with methotrexate. In: Drug resistance in leukemia and lymphoma II. Pieters R et al, eds. Harwood Academic Publ 1997: 163- 71. 60. Trippett T, Schlemmer S, Elisseyeff Y, et al. Defective transport as a mechanism of acquired resistance to methotrexate in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 1992; 80: 1158-62. 61. Whitehead VM, Rosenblatt DS, Vuhich M-J, et al. Accumulation of methotrexate and methotrexate polyglutamates in lymphoblasts at diagnosis of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A pilot prognostic factor analysis. Blood 1990; 76: 44-9. 62. Whitehead VM, Vuchich MJ, Mahoney D, et al. Accumulation of high levels of methotrexate polyglutamates in lymphoblasts from children with hyperdiploid (>50 chromosomes) B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A pediatric oncology group study. Blood 1992; 80: 1316-23. 63. Matherly LH, Taub JW, Wong SC, et al. Increased frequency of expression of elevated dihydrofolate reductase in T-cell versus B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. Blood 1997; 90: 578-89. 64. Ravindranath Y, Kaspers GJL, Rots MG, et al. Polymorphism of
methyelenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and methotrexate (MTX) sensitivity of childhood B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BP-ALL). Leukemia (abstract) 2001; 15: 496. 65. Ulrich CM, Yasui Y, Storb R, et al. Pharmacogenetics of methotrexate: toxicity among marrow transplantation patients varies with the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C667T polymorphism. Blood 2001; 98: 231-34. 66. Mc Leod, Relling MV, Liu Q, Pui C-H, and Evans WE. Polymorphic thiopurine methyltransferase in erythrocytes is indicative of activity in leukemic blasts from children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1995; 85: 1897-902.
67. Coulthard SA, Howell C, Robson J, and Hall G. The relationship between thiopurine methyltransferase activity and genotype in blast from patients with acute leukemia. Blood 1998; 92: 2856-62. 68. Maung ZT, Hogarth L, Reid MM, et al. Raised intracellular glutathione levels correlate with in vitro resistance to cytotoxic drugs in leukaemic cells from patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Leukemia 1994; 8: 1487-91. 69. Davis TA, White CA, Grillo-Lopez AJ, et al. Single-agent monoclonal antibody efficacy in bulky non-Hodgkins lymphoma: results of a phase II trial of rituximab. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1851-57. 70. Sawyers Cl. Cancer treatment in the STI571 era: What will change? J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 13s-6s. 71. Mauro MJ, Drukker BJ. STI571: targeting BCR-ABL as therapy for CML. Oncol 2001; 6: 233-8. 72. Noordhuis P, Kazemier KM, Kaspers GJL and Peters GJ. Modulation of cytosine arabinoside with N-(phosphon)-acetyl-L-aspartate in human leukemic cells In : Drug resistance in leukemia and lymphoma II. Pieters R et al, eds. Harwood Academic Publ. 1993: 229-35. 73. Twentyman PR. Modulation of drug resistance In: Drug resistance in leukemia and lymphoma II ,edited by Pieters R et al. Harwood Academic Publ. 1997: 403-41 74. Haarman EG, Kaspers GJL, Pieters R , Rottier MMA and Veerman AJP. Modulation of glucocorticoid resistance in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia; preliminary results. Haematol Blood Transf ( in press ). 75. Wald BR, Heisel MA, Ortega JA. Frequency of early death in children with acute leukemia presenting with hyperleukocytosis. Cancer 1982; 50: 150-7. 76. Miller DR, Leikin S, Albo V, et al. Prognostic factors and therapy in acute lymphoblastic leukemia of childhood : CCG-141. Cancer 1983 ; 51: 1041-9. 77. Williams DL, Tsiatis A, Brodeur GM, et al. Prognostic importance of chromosome number in 136 untreated children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1982; 60: 864-71. 78. Janka-Schaub GE, Harm DO, Den Boer ML, Veerman AJP, Pieters R. Die in- vitrozytostatika-resistenz als unabhangiger prognostischer faktor in studie COALL-05-92 zur behandlung der akuten lymphoblastischen leukamie im kindesalter: Basis fur eine doppelstratifizierung nach traditionellen risikokritetrien und resistenzprofil in studie CALL-06-97. Klin.Padiatr 1999; 211: 233-8.
79. Zwaan CM, Kaspers GJL, Pieters R, et al. Cellular drug resistance profiles in childhood acute myeloid leukemia: differences between FAB types and comparison with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2000; 96: 2878-86. 80. Riccardi R, Lasorella A, Mastrangelo R. Principle of cancer chemotherapy in children. In Cancer in children, clinical management. Edited by Voute PA, 4th, Oxford; New York 1998: 44-59. 81. Pieters R, Kaspers Pieters R, Kaspers GJL, et al. Resistance testing and mechanisms of resistance in childhood leukemia In: Drug resistance in leukemia and lymphoma III. Kaspers et al, eds. Kluwer academic/Plenum publisher; New York 1999: 391-5. 82. Werner S, and M Bronnegard. Molecular basis of glucocorticoid-resistant syndromes. Steroids 1996; 61: 216-21. 83. Hala M, Hartmann BL, Bock G, Geley S, and Kofler R. Glucocorticoid receptor gene defect and resistance to glucocorticoid induced apoptosis in human leukemic cell lines. Int J Cancer 1996; 68: 663-8. 84. Hurley DM, Accili D, Stratakis CA, et al. Point mutation causing a single amino acid substitution in the hormone binding domain of the glucocorticoid receptor in familial glucocorticoid resistance. J Clin Invest 1991; 87: 680-6. 85. Dubbers A, Wurthwein G, Muller HJ, et al. Asparagine synthetase activity in pediatric acute leukemias: AML-M5 subtype shows lowest activity. Br J Haematol 2000; 109: 427-9.