William Evans and colleagues find that the proinflammatory genes CASP1 and NLRP3 are expressed at higher levels in primary acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells that are resistant than in those that are sensitive to glucocorticoid treatment. They find that CASP1 mediates glucocorticoid resistance through cleavage of the glucocorticoid receptor. Glucocorticoids are universally used in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and resistance to glucocorticoids in leukemia cells confers poor prognosis. To elucidate mechanisms of glucocorticoid resistance, we determined the prednisolone sensitivity of primary leukemia cells from 444 patients newly diagnosed with ALL and found significantly higher expression of CASP1 (encoding caspase 1) and its activator NLRP3 in glucocorticoid-resistant leukemia cells, resulting from significantly lower somatic methylation of the CASP1 and NLRP3 promoters. Overexpression of CASP1 resulted in cleavage of the glucocorticoid receptor, diminished the glucocorticoid-induced transcriptional response and increased glucocorticoid resistance. Knockdown or inhibition of CASP1 significantly increased glucocorticoid receptor levels and mitigated glucocorticoid resistance in CASP1-overexpressing ALL. Our findings establish a new mechanism by which the NLRP3-CASP1 inflammasome modulates cellular levels of the glucocorticoid receptor and diminishes cell sensitivity to glucocorticoids. The broad impact on the glucocorticoid transcriptional response suggests that this mechanism could also modify glucocorticoid effects in other diseases.

We evaluated clinical significance of recently identified subtypes of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in 598 children treated with minimal residual disease (MRD)–directed therapy. Among the 16 B-cell ALL (B-ALL) and 8 T-cell ALL subtypes identified by next-generation sequencing, ETV6–RUNX1, high-hyperdiploid, and DUX4-rearranged B-ALL had the best 5-year event-free survival rates (95.0%–98.4%); TCF3–PBX1, PAX5-altered (PAX5alt), T-cell, early T-cell precursor (ETP), intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21), and hypodiploid ALL intermediate rates (80.0%–88.2%); and BCR–ABL1, BCR–ABL1-like, ETV6–RUNX1-like, and KMT2A-rearranged ALL the worst rates (64.1%–76.2%). All but 3 of the 142 patients with day 8 blood MRD <0.01% remained in remission. Among new subtypes, intensified therapy based on day 15 MRD ≥1% improved outcome of DUX4-rearranged, BCR–ABL1-like, and ZNF384-rearranged ALL, and achievement of day 42 MRD <0.01% did not preclude relapse of PAX5alt, MEF2D-rearranged, and ETV6–RUNX1-like ALL. Thus, new subtypes including DUX4-rearranged, PAX5alt, BCR–ABL1-like, ETV6–RUNX1-like, MEF2D-rearranged, and ZNF384-rearranged ALL have important prognostic and therapeutic implications. Significance: Genomic analyses and MRD should be used together for risk-directed treatment of childhood ALL. Six recently described subtypes—DUX4-rearranged, PAX5alt, BCR–ABL1-like, ETV6–RUNX1-like, MEF2D-rearranged, and ZNF384-rearranged ALL—had prognostic and therapeutic significance with contemporary risk-directed treatment. See related commentary by Segers and Cools, p. 294. See related video from the AACR Annual Meeting 2021: https://vimeo.com/558556916

Contemporary chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is risk-adapted based on clinical features, leukemia genomics and minimal residual disease (MRD); however, the pharmacological basis of these prognostic variables remains unclear. Analyzing samples from 805 children with newly diagnosed ALL from three consecutive clinical trials, we determined the ex vivo sensitivity of primary leukemia cells to 18 therapeutic agents across 23 molecular subtypes defined by leukemia genomics. There was wide variability in drug response, with favorable ALL subtypes exhibiting the greatest sensitivity to L-asparaginase and glucocorticoids. Leukemia sensitivity to these two agents was highly associated with MRD although with distinct patterns and only in B cell ALL. We identified six patient clusters based on ALL pharmacotypes, which were associated with event-free survival, even after adjusting for MRD. Pharmacotyping identified a T cell ALL subset with a poor prognosis that was sensitive to targeted agents, pointing to alternative therapeutic strategies. Our study comprehensively described the pharmacological heterogeneity of ALL, highlighting opportunities for further individualizing therapy for this most common childhood cancer.

Key Points: Comprehensive study of glucocorticoid-induced osteonecrosis identifies glutamate receptor gene variants as risk factors.

PURPOSE: Pegaspargase (PEG-ASP) has largely replaced native Escherichia coli asparaginase (L-ASP) in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia because of its longer half-life and lower immunogenicity. Risk factors for allergic reactions to PEG-ASP remain unclear. Here, we identify risk factors for reactions in a front-line acute lymphoblastic leukemia trial and assess the usefulness of serum antibodies for diagnosing allergy and predicting rechallenge outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PEG-ASP was administered to 598 patients in St Jude’s Total XVI study. Results were compared with Total XV study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00549848 and NCT00137111 ), which used native L-ASP. Serum samples (n = 5,369) were analyzed for anti–PEG-ASP immunoglobulin G by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Positive samples were tested for anti–polyethylene glycol (PEG) and anti–L-ASP. We analyzed potential risk factors for reactions and associations between antibodies and reactions, rechallenge outcomes, and PEG-ASP pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Grade 2 to 4 reactions were less common in the Total XVI study with PEG-ASP (81 [13.5%] of 598) than in the Total XV study with L-ASP (169 [41.2%] of 410; P = 1.4 × 10⁻²³). For Total XVI, anti-PEG, not anti–L-ASP, was the predominant component of anti–PEG-ASP antibodies (96%). In a multivariable analysis, more intrathecal therapy (IT) predicted fewer reactions ( P = 2.4 × 10⁻⁵), which is consistent with an immunosuppressant contribution of IT. Anti–PEG-ASP was associated with accelerated drug clearance ( P = 5.0 × 10⁻⁶). Failure of rechallenge after initial reactions was associated with anti–PEG-ASP ( P = .0078) and was predicted by the occurrence of angioedema with first reaction ( P = .01). CONCLUSION: Less IT therapy was the only independent clinical risk factor for reactions to PEG-ASP. PEG, and not L-ASP, is the major antigen that causes allergic reactions. Anti–PEG-ASP has utility in predicting and confirming clinical reactions to PEG-ASP as well as in identifying patients who are most likely to experience failure with rechallenge.