The Gain of the Short Arm of Chromosome 2 (2p+) Induces XPO1 Overexpression and Drug Resistance in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Authors: Cosson Adrien , Chapiro Elise , Lambert Jérome , Cung Hong-Anh , Algrin Caroline , Damm Frédérik , Gabillaud Clémentine , Davi Frederic , Merle-Béral Hélène , Choquet Sylvain , Uzunov Madalina , Morel Véronique , Leblond Veronique , Maloum Karim , Leprêtre Stéphane , Feugier Pierre , Lesty Claude , Lejeune Julie , Sutton Laurent , A. Susin Santos , Nguyen-Khac Florence 
Published: October 2019

Abstract
Introduction: CLL is a heterogeneous disease in terms of response to treatment, with some patients reaching complete and prolonged remissions, while others relapsing early and requiring several lines of treatments. This highly variable course is partly explained by the existence of a heterogenic panel of genetic alterations (mutations, chromosomal abnormalities) that allow the development of drug-resistant aggressive CLL subclones. Therefore, a functional characterization of the cytogenetic alterations associated to CLL drug resistance may provide new means of improving the current therapeutic strategies. We and others have already reported that the gain of 2p (2p+) is recurrent in CLL. However, the candidate gained gene(s) on the 2p remain to be identified. Previously data: we have observed that the 2p gain is frequent in previously untreated CLL Binet stages B/C (21/132, 15.9%), and is associated with bad prognostic factors, such as 11q deletion (p=0.0008) and unmutated IGHV (p=0.02). Using a SNP-array approach, we have identified a minimally gained region of 1.28Mb on 2p16.1-15. This region included the gene CRM1/XPO1 (Chromosome Region Maintenance 1/Exportin-1), a gene also recurrently mutated in CLL. A qPCR assessment confirmed that XPO1 was overexpressed in the 2p+/CLL patients (1.4-fold increase compared to 2p-/CLL; p=0.02). The objective of our work was to identify the potential role of XPO1 in CLL drug resistance by using the selective XPO1 inhibitor Selinexor (KPT-330, provided by Karyopharm Therapeutics), which is currently in Phase II human clinical trials in hematological and solid cancers.
Methods: We have analyzed 36 2p+/CLL and we have searched for XPO1 mutations in 436 CLL samples. CLL drug resistance associated to XPO1 overexpression/mutation was assessed by measuring the rate of programmed cell death (PCD) on cells from 2p- and wildtype (wt) XPO1/CLL (n=20), 2p+/XPO1 wt/CLL (n=8) and on XPO1 mut/CLL (n=6). After 24 hours treatment with Fludarabin + Cyclophosphamid + Rituximab (FCR), Ibrutinib (Ibru), Idelalisib + Rituximab (Ide+R) and Selinexor, cells were stained with Annexin-V and propidium iodide and PCD was assessed by flow cytometry. KPT-301 was used as a negative control. For the inhibition assay, the inhibitor Q-VD-Oph was added 30 min before inducing cell death. Mitochondrial membrane depolarisation was assessed using tetramethyllrhodamine ethyl ester probe and flow cytometry analysis.
Results: (i) Using a FISH approach, we fully confirmed the gain of XPO1 in 2p+/CLL samples. Additionally, we found that the XPO1 gain was often subclonal, suggesting that it tends to arise late in leukemic development. Longitudinal FISH analyses, performed on 8 2p+/CLL-treated patients, showed a similar or increasing percentage of cells carrying XPO1 gain at relapse, when compared to diagnosis; (ii) XPO1 was mutated in 23/436 (5.3%) CLL and in 2/30 (6.7%) 2p+/CLL; (iii) Selinexor induced PCD in 2p-/XPO1 wt/CLL (35% of PCD). The results were similar in all tested CLL, independently of prognostic factors (del13q, tri12, del11q, del17p, IGHV status), while sparing the non leukemic cells from patients or B cells from healthy donors; (iv) Selinexor induced CLL PCD through a caspase-dependant apoptotic pathway, as evidenced by inhibition of cell death by Q-VD-Oph, and cleavage of the caspase-3. Selinexor also induced mitochondrial depolarization and was associated with upregulation and activation of the pro-apopototic Bax protein; (v) XPO1 mut/CLL were significantly resistant to PCD induced by Selinexor (p=0.003). In contrast, the mutations in XPO1 had no effect in FCR and Ibru PCD induction; (vi) 2p+/CLL cells were resistant to PCD induced by all tested drugs: FCR (p=0.01), Ibru (p=0.003), Ide+R (p=0.004) and Selinexor (p=0.0001).
Conclusion: Our data show that 2p+/CLL is associated to FCR, Ibru and Ide+R drug resistance. Strikingly, Selinexor, a new XPO1 inhibitor, is unable to induce PCD in 2p+ and/or XPO1 mut CLL, which strongly suggests a key role for XPO1 in the CLL drug resistance associated to the 2p gain. Altogether, our work provide substantial progress in the understanding of the role of XPO1 in CLL drug resistance and suggests that the assessment of the 2p gain and the mutations in XPO1 will be considered before to decide a CLL therapy. As 2p gain could be observed in other B malignancies, it is tempting to extend these recommendations to all Selinexor treatments.

Disclosures
Choquet: Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Leblond:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Honoraria.