Kaufmann, Scott H.

Abstract Current understanding suggests that malignant stem and progenitor cells must be reduced or eliminated for prolonged remissions in myeloid neoplasms such as acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Multicolor flow cytometry has been widely used to distinguish stem and myeloid progenitor cells from other populations in normal and malignant bone marrow. In this study, we present a method for assessing drug sensitivity in MDS and AML patient hematopoietic stem and myeloid progenitor cell populations ex vivo using the investigational Nedd8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924 and standard-of-care agent cytarabine as examples. Utilizing a multicolor flow cytometry antibody panel for identification of hematopoietic stem cells, multipotent progenitors, common myeloid progenitors, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors, and megakaryocyte-erythroid progenitors present in mononuclear cell fractions isolated from bone marrow aspirates, we compare stem and progenitor cell counts after treatment for 24 hours with drug versus diluent. We demonstrate that MLN4924 exerts a cytotoxic effect on MDS and AML stem and progenitor cell populations, whereas cytarabine has more limited effects. Further application of this method for evaluating drug effects on these populations ex vivo and in vivo may inform rational design and selection of therapies in the clinical setting.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor veliparib delays DNA repair and potentiates cytotoxicity of multiple classes of chemotherapy drugs, including topoisomerase I inhibitors and platinating agents. This study evaluated veliparib incorporation into leukemia induction therapy using a previously described topotecan/carboplatin backbone. Experimental Design: Employing a 3+3 trial design, we administered escalating doses of veliparib combined with topotecan + carboplatin in relapsed or refractory acute leukemias, aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Results: A total of 99 patients received veliparib 10–100 mg orally twice daily on days 1–8, 1–14, or 1–21 along with continuous infusion topotecan 1.0–1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 120–150 mg/m2/d on days 3–7. The MTD was veliparib 80 mg twice daily for up to 21 days with topotecan 1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 150 mg/m2/d. Mucositis was dose limiting and correlated with high veliparib concentrations. The response rate was 33% overall (33/99: 14 CR, 11 CRi, 8 PR) but was 64% (14/22) for patients with antecedent or associated aggressive MPNs or CMML. Leukemias with baseline DNA repair defects, as evidenced by impaired DNA damage–induced FANCD2 monoubiquitination, had improved survival [HR = 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.92)]. A single 80-mg dose of veliparib, as well as veliparib in combination with topotecan + carboplatin, induced DNA damage as manifested by histone H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ leukemia cells, with greater phosphorylation in cells from responders. Conclusions: The veliparib/topotecan/carboplatin combination warrants further investigation, particularly in patients with aggressive MPNs, CMML, and MPN- or CMML-related acute leukemias. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 899–907. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: In preclinical studies, the PARP inhibitor veliparib enhanced the antileukemic action of temozolomide through potentiation of DNA damage. Accordingly, we conducted a phase 1 study of temozolomide with escalating doses of veliparib in patients with relapsed, refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from aggressive myeloid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients received veliparib [20–200 mg once a day on day 1 and twice daily on days 4–12 in cycle 1 (days 1–8 in cycle ≥2)] and temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2 daily on days 3–9 in cycle 1 (days 1–5 in cycle ≥2)] every 28 to 56 days. Veliparib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [ability to inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (PAR) formation and induce H2AX phosphorylation] were assessed. Pretreatment levels of MGMT and PARP1 protein, methylation of the MGMT promoter, and integrity of the Fanconi anemia pathway were also examined. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated at seven dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were oral mucositis and esophagitis lasting >7 days. The MTD was veliparib 150 mg twice daily with temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily. The complete response (CR) rate was 17% (8/48 patients). Veliparib exposure as well as inhibition of PAR polymer formation increased dose proportionately. A veliparib-induced increase in H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ cells was observed in responders. Three of 4 patients with MGMT promoter methylation achieved CR. Conclusions: Veliparib plus temozolomide is well tolerated, with activity in advanced AML. Further evaluation of this regimen and of treatment-induced phosphorylation of H2AX and MGMT methylation as potential response predictors appears warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(3); 697–706. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract While standard chemotherapeutics can initially induce remission in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), patients often relapse in part due to the protective bone marrow microenvironment, which promotes the survival of AML cells. Using an in vitro cell culture model of the bone marrow, our lab recently showed that differentiating osteoblasts potently protect AML cells from apoptosis. In addition, we found that differentiating osteoblasts treated with histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) fail to protect AML cells in this model. Since HDACi decreased the expression of genes required for osteoblast differentiation, we hypothesize that blocking specific stage(s) of osteoblast differentiation may make AML cells within the bone marrow more susceptible to chemotherapy. We are currently disrupting specific osteoblast differentiation stages via molecular or therapeutic drug manipulation and exploring the impact on AML cell survival both in cell culture models of the bone marrow microenvironment and in a mouse model of AML. The results of our studies will characterize novel bone marrow molecular and cellular interactions that promote the survival of AML cells. Targeting these interactions in combination therapies may more completely eradicate the AML cell reservoir and better prevent relapse. Citation Format: Rosalie Sterner, Kimberly Kremer, Amel Dudakovic, Scott Kaufmann, Jennifer Westendorf, Andre van Wijnen, Karen Hedin. Manipulating osteoblast differentiation in order to inhibit protection of AML cells within the bone marrow. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3292.

Abstract Resistance is one the main reason for overall decrease in survival of cancer patient treated with cisplatin in different types of cancer. Cisplatin kills cancer cells by various mechanisms, but mainly through formation of inter- and intra stand crosslinks of DNA. Different types of translesion polymerase including Polymerase kappa (POLK) are involved in repair of DNA lesions. We observed high expression levels of POLK in cisplatin resistant bladder and ovarian cancer cells compared to parental cells. Due to its low proof-reading activity POLK can incorporate 8-oxo-dGTP into DNA. The MTH1 protein (Nudix hydrolase- NUDT1) sanitizes oxidized dNTP pools to prevent incorporation of damaged bases during DNA replication. Recently we have generated MTH1 inhibitors that damage the DNA and induce cancer specific cell death through incorporation of more oxidized dNTPs. We found cisplatin resistant bladder cancer cells (NTUB1/P) were more sensitive to MTH1 inhibitors in comparison to parental NTUB1 cells. As POLK is involved in incorporation of 8-oxo-dGTP into DNA, we hypothesized that high expression levels of POLK in cisplatin resistant cells make them more sensitive to MTH1 inhibitors as more 8-oxo-dGTP would be incorporated into DNA, resulting in more DNA damage and cell death in comparison to parental cells. Indeed, we observes higher induction of cleaved-PARP, γH2AX, cleaved-Caspase 3 and more annexin v positive cells in cisplatin resistant NTUB1/P cells in comparison to parental NTUB1 cells upon treatment with MTH1 inhibitors. MTH1 inhibitor also significantly delays the NTUB1/P xenograft tumor growth in comparison to vehicle treatment in immunosuppressive mice. Knocking down POLK in cisplatin resistant NTUB1/P cells by siRNA resulted in decreased incorporation of 8-oxo-dGTP and sensitivity to MTH1 inhibitors compared to non target control cells. Overexpression of POLK in NTUB1 and NTUB1/P cells results in further sensitization to MTH1 inhibitors. In conclusion elevated levels of POLK in cisplatin resistance cells determines increased sensitivity towards MTH1 inhibitors. Thus MTH1 inhibitors can be a potential promising therapy for the treatment of cisplatin resistant tumors in patients. Citation Format: Kumar Sanjiv, Helge Gad, Sean Rudd, Rachel Hurley, Patric Herr, José Manuel Calderón Montaño, Oliver Mortusewicz, Tobias Koolmeister, Sylvain Jaques, Estefanía Burgos Morón, Andreas Hoglund, Te-Chang Lee, Martin Scobie, Scott Kaufmann, John Weroha, Ulrika Warpman Berglund, Andrea Wahner Hendrickson, Thomas Helleday. Polymerase kappa determines the sensitivity of MTH1 inhibitors to cisplatin-resistant cell. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 1260.

Abstract Purpose: Somatic mosaic mutation in the PPM1D gene have been associated with risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Somatic mosaic mutations in blood cells may be associated with older age and chemotherapy exposure. We wanted to determine if somatic mosaic mutations in PPM1D and in other genes are associated with older age and repeated exposure to chemotherapy, rather than a contributor to risk of disease. Experimental design: We used targeted capture and massively parallel genomic sequencing to sequence DNA from PBMCs from affected patients for PPM1D as well as 60 other DNA repair genes. For a number of samples with PPM1D mutations, we re-sequenced at greater depth on patients where PBMCs that were collected at diagnosis and recurrence. Results: We identified somatic mosaic mutations in exon 6 of PPM1D in 4 out of 474 (0.8%) individuals that were newly diagnosed and had no previous chemotherapy, in 3 out of 29 (10%) individuals newly diagnosed but receiving chemotherapy and in 58 of 274 (21%) individuals with relapsed platinum resistant ovarian cancer (p<0.0001). The presence of PPM1D mutations in exon 6 was strongly associated with more advanced age (p=0.011, Wilcoxon test) and more than one chemotherapy regimen (p=0.026, Fisher's exact test). In paired blood samples from 13 patients, PPM1D mutations present at relapse were either not detected or detected at a lower percentage compared to blood obtained soon after diagnosis. Somatic mosaic mutations were also identified in TP53 in 7 of 274 (2.5%) women with relapsed platinum resistant cancer. In one of these cases, we had an earlier blood sample from diagnosis in which the mutation was not present at time near diagnosis. Conclusion: We found that somatic mosaic PPM1D mutations in PMBCs are associated with advanced age and repeated exposure to chemotherapy. Mosaic mutations in other genes were not confirmed with the exception of TP53, for which mutations are also detectable after extensive treatment. It seems likely that mosaic PPM1D mutations in blood from cancer patients may be a result of selection by chemotherapy of age-induced somatic mutations during exposure to chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical significance of these mutations. Citation Format: Maria I. Harrell, Barbara M. Norquist, Tom Walsh, Mark F. Brady, Ming K. Lee, Robert Hershberg, Kimberly R. Kalli, Heather Lankes, Eric Q. Konnick, Colin C. Pritchard, Bradley J. Monk, John K. Chan, Robert Burger, Scott H. Kaufmann, Michael J. Birrer, Elizabeth M. Swisher. Old age and chemotherapy contribute to the selection of PPM1D somatic mosaic mutations in ovarian cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Ovarian Cancer Research: Exploiting Vulnerabilities; Oct 17-20, 2015; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2016;22(2 Suppl):Abstract nr B71.