Citations

Progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms to blast phase (BPMPN) is associated with lack of response to conventional therapies and dire clinical outcomes. Consequently, there is a major unmet need to develop new therapies for BPMPN. Chromothripsis, the process of catastrophic shattering and haphazard repair of chromosomes, is a key contributor to somatic variation in cancer, but this phenomenon has not yet been described in BPMPN. More broadly, whether chromothripsis might result in actionable molecular events that are amenable to targeting remains an open question. To characterise the contribution of structural variants to BPMPN, we first performed integrated copy number and mutation profiling in 64 BPMPN patients by SNP karyotyping and targeted next generation sequencing. We observed a recurrent pattern of chromothripsis that involved chromosome 21, which together with other structural variants led to amplification of a common region of chromosome 21 (‘chr21amp‘) in ~25% of patients (GISTIC q-val<0.01, Fig 1A). Chr21amp was associated with TP53 mutations and a higher number of copy number alterations. Patients with chr21amp had a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant phenotype, with 0% surviving 12 months compared to 46% in the non-chr21amp pts ( p=0.0007), retaining significance in multivariate analysis including after correction for TP53 mutation status. Whole genome sequencing confirmed that the chromosomal rearrangements resulting in chr21amp occurred by different mechanisms, ranging from simple amplification to highly complex chromothriptic events involving multiple chromosomes. There were no recurrent translocation partners or mutations. The minimally amplified region (MAR) spanned 2.7Mb and contained 24 genes, with a median copy number of 3.5 (range 2.7-8.3) Single-cell transcriptomics combined with allelic resolution genotyping revealed that chr21amp was present in the dominant subclone and occurred subsequent to JAK2V617F and mut TP53 acquisition. Chr21amp was detectable in phenotypic HSCs and throughout early stages of hematopoiesis, but not in mature erythroid cells, consistent with a differentiation block. Of the 24 genes in the minimally amplified region, only one gene, DYRK1A, a serine threonine kinase linked to cell proliferation and survival, was both differentially expressed (single-cell and bulk RNAseq) and differentially accessible (ATACseq). To explore the functional role of DYRK1A in BPMPN we performed shRNA and CRISPR-mediated DYRK1A-knockdown and knockout (KO) in BPMPN cell lines (HEL and SET-2), which led to impaired cell proliferation. The DYRK1A inhibitors EHT1610 and GNF2133 also led to dose-dependent growth inhibition. DYRK1A-KO BPMPN HEL or SET2 cell clones showed a reduced ability to propagate leukemia in vivo with a significant survival advantage vs. wild type control mice. BPMPN chr21amp+ primary patient CD34+ cells were highly sensitive toDYRK1A inhibitors, while healthy control CD34+ cells were unaffected Prior studies have shown that DYRK1A activates the DREAM complex, a transcriptional repressor of DNA-repair pathways. In chr21amp patient cells, the DREAM DNA repair gene signature was significantly downregulated (NES -1.74, q-val <0.001), while conversely in CRISPR DYRK1A KO SET2 cells the transcriptional DNA repair signature was upregulated (NES 1.76, q-val <0.001). In functional assays, CRISPR DYRK1A KO was protective against DNA damage, with a reduction in γ-H2AX foci after etoposide treatment or irradiation ( p<0.01 for both). A second mechanism of leukemogenesis emerged from geneset enrichment analyses, which suggested enhanced JAK-STAT signaling in chr21amp BPMPN cells and downregulation in the CRISPR DYRK1A KO context. We validated this by showing that DYRK1A overexpression activates and potentiates STAT5B transcriptional activity in a luciferase reporter assay. Finally, we noted that the STAT target BCL2 was selectively upregulated in chr21amp cells. BCL2 inhibition showed strong synergy with DYRK1A inhibitors for induction of BPMPN cell apoptosis (Bliss synergy score 15). Collectively, these findings define the chr21amp event as a novel prognostic biomarker in BPMPN. We pinpoint DYRK1A amplification as a central driver of genomic instability and exacerbated JAK-STAT signalling, for the first time linking chromothripsis to a specific druggable target ( Fig 1B).

AbstractGenesurance counseling has been identified as an integral part of many genetic counseling sessions, but little is known about the workflow impacts and genetic counselor perceptions of genesurance‐related tasks. In this study, we aimed to characterize how insurance and billing considerations for genetic testing are being incorporated into genetic counselors' practice in the United States, as well as describe current attitudes and challenges associated with their integration. An electronic survey was sent by email to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). A total of 325 American Board of Genetic Counselors‐certified genetic counselors who provide direct patient care in the United States for at least 50% of their time were included in data analysis. Results showed that the frequency and timing of various insurance‐ and billing‐related tasks were not consistent among respondents, even those practicing in similar settings. Inadequate training to complete tasks was reported by 64% of respondents, and 47% reported a lack of resources from their employer and/or institution to complete genesurance tasks. Additionally, only 38% of respondents agreed that insurance‐ and billing‐related tasks were within the scope of the genetic counseling practice, and there was little consensus on who respondents believe is the most appropriate person to complete these tasks. When asked how genesurance considerations affected job satisfaction, 85% of respondents reported a negative impact. This study found an inconsistent genesurance workflow among genetic counselors practicing in the United States, a lack of consensus on who should be responsible for genesurance tasks, several challenges associated with completing these tasks, and identifies genesurance considerations as potential risk factors for genetic counselor burnout.

Background Bupropion is associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of seizures. Use of concomitant bupropion and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains controversial because of an increased risk of prolonged seizures. This is the first systematic evaluation of the effect of bupropion on ECT. Methods A case group (n = 119), patients treated with concomitant ECT and bupropion, was compared with an age and gender frequency–matched control group (n = 261), treated with only ECT. Electroconvulsive therapy treatment data including seizure length, number of treatments, and concurrent medications were extracted. Longitudinal mixed models examined ECT versus ECT + bupropion group differences over the course of treatments measured by seizure duration (electroencephalogram [EEG] and motor). Multivariable models examined the total number of treatments and first and last seizure duration. All models considered group differences with ECT treatment measures adjusted for age, gender, benzodiazepine treatment, lead placement, and setting. Results Electroconvulsive therapy treatment with bupropion led to shorter motor seizure duration (0.047) and EEG seizure duration (P = 0.001). The number of ECT treatments (7.3 vs 7.0 treatments; P = 0.23), respectively, or the probability of a prolonged seizure (P = 0.15) was not significantly different. Benzodiazepine use was significantly more common in control subjects (P = 0.01). Limitations This is a retrospective analysis limited in part by unavailable variables (seizure threshold, nature of EEG and motor seizure monitoring, type of ECT device, dosing and formulation of bupropion, and duration of the current depressive illness). Conclusions This study revealed a significantly shorter duration in seizure length with ECT + concomitant bupropion, but not in the number of required treatments in those treated compared with ECT without bupropion. There remains a critical need to reevaluate the efficacy of concomitant use of psychotropic medications + ECT.