Presentation on theme: "Epidemiology of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Tom Radivoyevitch, PhD Assistant Professor Epidemiology and Biostatistics Case Western Reserve University."— Presentation transcript:
Epidemiology of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Tom Radivoyevitch, PhD Assistant Professor Epidemiology and Biostatistics Case Western Reserve University
Two CML-ogens: Radiation and Age Not exponential => use additive risk model Sv = gamma ray dose (Gy) + 10 neutron dose (Gy)
Radiation-induced CML is Multi-scale Figure by R.K. Sachs. For a 500 keV incoming photon J = 6.2e18eV Gy = J/kg = 6.2e6eV/pL
Stochastic versus Deterministic Figure by R.K. Sachs.
Why Study Radiation as the Input? Best carcinogen exposure assessment: A- bomb survivors remember exactly where they were, so doses can be reconstructed Compared to chemical carcinogen, cannot simply not use it: background, diagnostic, and therapeutic exposures are here to stay Physics is understood, so results across x- & γ -rays, neutrons & protons, and α- and β particles at different energies can be unified Other CML-ogen, aging, also cannot be avoided+exposure is known
Why Study CML as the Output? CML is homogeneous: all have BCR-ABL CML is prevalent: introns large => per-cell target size for creating bcr-abl is large leukemias have rapid onset kinetics: white blood cells go in and out of tissues naturally so they don’t need to learn to metastasize Chr9 = 136.3 Mb ~140 kb 139.6 Kb DNA Repair 10 (2011) 1131– 1137 ~5 kb = introns between e12-e15 Chr 22 49.2 Mb From 1KG browser
Dose Response N is the number of CML target cells in an individual P(ba|T) is the probability of BCR- ABL given a translocation w(t)=probability density that CML arrives at t given bcr-abl at t=0 Linear R = 0.0075/Gy. LQE posterior R = 0.0022/Gy
CML Target Cell Numbers A comparison of age responses for CML and total translocations suggests a CML target cell number of 4x10 8 10 12 nucleated marrow cells per adult and one LTC-IC per 10 5 marrow cells suggests 10 7 CML target cells P(ba|T) = 2T abl T bcr / 2 may not hold
23 Hi-C Data http://hic.umassmed.edu/heatmap/heatmap.php 133 chr9 chr22 K562 = bcr-abl + CML cells Lieberman-Aiden, et al. Science 9 October 2009: 289-293. 23 133 GM06690 = EBV-transformed lymphoblasts Off by 2 Mb?
Theory of Dual Radiation Action P(ba|D) = probability of a BCR-ABL translocation per G 0 /G 1 cell given a dose D t D (r)dr = expected energy at r given an ionization event at the origin = intra-track component + inter-track component S ba (r) = the BCR-to-ABL distance probability density g(r) = probability that two DSBs misrejoin if they are created r units apart Y = 0.004 DSBs per Mb per Gy; = mass density T BCR = 5.8 kbp; T ABL = 140 kbp
Total Translocations → g(r) estimate G=25 DSB/Gy 6.25 kev/ m 3 = 1 Gy R = 3.7 m r 0 = 0.24 m, p 0 = 0.12 d in [.01,.025], dx in [.04,.05], d in [.05,.06]
Risk and Target Cell Numbers Higher risk estimate is more biologically plausible Linear-to-quadratic transition dose changed from [0.011-0.022]/0.055= [0.2-0.4] Gy to 3.64/.45= 8.09 Gy Linear R = 0.0075/Gy for D < 4Sv is higher here at 0.0094/Gy due to cell killing term
Bcr-Abl to CML Waiting Times M/F=1.42 tf-tm=6.3y M/F=1.6 tf-tm=10 yrs
Nagasaki HSC Reserve Loss? 6 Nagasaki CML vs 53 in Hiroshima Hiroshima PY=1558995 Nagasaki PY= 690084 (i.e. 2.26 lower), 53/2.26 = ~23 cases expected in Nagasaki HSC reserve permanently depleted to 25%? Human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV): 22 adult T-cell leukemias (ATLs) in Nagasaki compared to 1 in Hiroshima (2.26 more PY => expect ~50)
Dead-Band Control of HSC levels Transplant doses of 10, 100, and 1000 CRU => CRU levels 1-20% or 15-60% normal Blood (1996) 88: 2852-2858 Broad variation in human HSC levels Stem Cells (1995) 13: 512-516 Low levels of HSCs in BMT patients Blood (1998) 91: 1959-1965
HSC Reserve Loss Trend? Ave last 7 ratios 0.70 0.49 1995 data yielded k= 0.041 [Radiat Environ Biophys (1999) 38:201–206]. 0.031 in 2006 is consistent with tlcns leading CML by 10 yrs 0.80 0.54
All Cancer Incidence Conclusion: Cancer therapy is not the cause of the HSC reserve depletion Other Guesses? Does obesity increase bone marrow fat and thus squeeze out HSC? 1. Mississippi (34.4%) 51. Colorado (19.8%) 0.1*x+1(1-x)=0.5 =>.5=.9x => x=.555 Prevalence of cause must be greater than 55% Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1501-1506 => obesity causes CML Easier travel=> greater loads on immune system?
Or is it CMML Misclassification? CML = ICDO-2 9863 does not include CMML. Maybe all were called CML <1985, 50% in 1985-1995, and 0 after CML=ICD9 205.1 includes 20% CMML
AML Assuming all CML-ogens are also AML-ogens, this implies CML decreases are NOT due to decreases in exposures to bcr-abl forming agents. No AML trend is consistent with target cells being lineage committed and thus more tightly regulated than HSCs.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.