Binding, topoisomerase II leads to MLL translocation

·         A prerequisite for the specific outcome, i.e. creation of chromosomal rearrangement, is that TopoII inhibition has to occur in an especially vulnerable and correct hot spot in the MLL locus; however, details of this process and how it happens are not clear.

·         A target cell, i.e. leukaemia-initiating cell, has not been identified with sufficient confidence and consequently there is no target cell model to recapitulate the linkage between TopoII inhibition (‘poisoning’) and the production of DSB in an appropriate target. Recently, by the expression of engineered nucleases (TALENs) to induce simultaneous patient specific double strand breaks in the MLL gene and two different known translocation partners (AF4 and AF9), Breese et al (2015) were able to produce specific chromosomal translocations in K562 cells and in primary HSPCs.

·         In-utero etoposide-treatment failed to induce leukaemogenesis (Nanya et al 2015). Consequently, the envisaged linkage has not been empirically supported or rejected. However, it should be kept in mind that, whereas etoposide does induce a large number of MLL rearrangements, most of them occur within non-coding regions, therefore not eliciting any direct oncogenic consequence. A  MLL-AF4 in frame fusion is a rare event that needs to occur in a target cell within a relatively small and spatially restricted cell population during the appropriate, epigenetically plastic, developmental window; thus it may be difficult to empirically support this process.

·         Dose-response relationships between etoposide and treatment-related leukaemia are difficult to unravel, but risk of leukaemia seems to increase with larger total exposure to etoposide. However, comparison of exposures or kinetics of etoposide between leukaemia patients and non-leukemic treated subjects did not reveal any significant differences (Relling et al 1998). Also, it is not known whether the etoposide (or metabolite) concentrations during the treatment are of significance. In child and adult chemotherapy, concentrations are extremely variable between individuals; the lowest through plasma concentrations of etoposide have been of the order of 1 µM and peak concentrations very much higher. For example, in a study of Relling et al (1998), the maximum plasma concentration of etoposide was about 90 µM and that of etoposide catechol about 100-times less, below 1 µM. In another high dose chemotherapy study (Stremetzne et al 1997), the etoposide concentration was 170 µM and that of the catechol metabolite 5.8 µM maximally. However, it is not straightforward to juxtapose plasma concentrations and the tissue or cell concentration which TopoII enzyme ’sees’. Penetration of etoposide or its metabolite through plasma membrane is probably rather slow and it has been shown that the brain cancer tissue (metastasis or glioma) to plasma ratio for etoposide is only 0.1 (Pitz et al 2011). Blood-brain barrier is not necessarily a good model for cross-membrane distribution, but may give some idea about the general distributional behaviour of a drug. Even if the active target concentration of etoposide is only 10 % of the plasma concentration, it is still in the same range as the effective concentrations in cellular studies (see above). A final note on relevant concentrations: etoposide concentrations resulting in DSB and fusion gene are probably within a relatively restricted range. The concentration resulting in a proper fusion gene should be in a range which gives rise to a partially repaired insult and cells bypassing death and accumulating the abnormality.