PURPOSE: We examined the feasibility of using CYP2D6 genotyping to determine optimal tamoxifen dose and investigated whether the key active tamoxifen metabolite, endoxifen, could be increased by genotype-guided tamoxifen dosing in patients with intermediate CYP2D6 metabolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients on tamoxifen 20 mg daily ≥ 4 months and not on any strong CYP2D6 inhibiting medications were assayed for CYP2D6 genotype and plasma tamoxifen metabolite concentrations. Patients found to be CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers (EM) remained on 20 mg and those found to be intermediate (IM) or poor (PM) metabolizers were increased to 40 mg daily. Eighty-nine evaluable patients had tamoxifen metabolite measurements repeated 4 months later. RESULTS: As expected, the median baseline endoxifen concentration was higher in EM (34.3 ng/mL) compared with either IM (18.5 ng/mL; P = .0045) or PM (4.2 ng/mL; P < .001). When the dose was increased from 20 mg to 40 mg in IM and PM patients, the endoxifen concentration rose significantly; in IM there was a median intrapatient change from baseline of +7.6 ng/mL (-0.6 to 23.9; P < .001), and in PM there was a change of +6.1 ng/mL (2.6 to 12.5; P = .020). After the dose increase, there was no longer a significant difference in endoxifen concentrations between EM and IM patients (P = .84); however, the PM endoxifen concentration was still significantly lower. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of genotype-driven tamoxifen dosing and demonstrates that doubling the tamoxifen dose can increase endoxifen concentrations in IM and PM patients.
PURPOSE: We examined the feasibility of using CYP2D6 genotyping to determine optimal tamoxifen dose and investigated whether the key active tamoxifen metabolite, endoxifen, could be increased by genotype-guided tamoxifen dosing in patients with intermediate CYP2D6 metabolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients on tamoxifen 20 mg daily ≥ 4 months and not on any strong CYP2D6 inhibiting medications were assayed for CYP2D6 genotype and plasma tamoxifen metabolite concentrations. Patients found to be CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers (EM) remained on 20 mg and those found to be intermediate (IM) or poor (PM) metabolizers were increased to 40 mg daily. Eighty-nine evaluable patients had tamoxifen metabolite measurements repeated 4 months later. RESULTS: As expected, the median baseline endoxifen concentration was higher in EM (34.3 ng/mL) compared with either IM (18.5 ng/mL; P = .0045) or PM (4.2 ng/mL; P < .001). When the dose was increased from 20 mg to 40 mg in IM and PM patients, the endoxifen concentration rose significantly; in IM there was a median intrapatient change from baseline of +7.6 ng/mL (-0.6 to 23.9; P < .001), and in PM there was a change of +6.1 ng/mL (2.6 to 12.5; P = .020). After the dose increase, there was no longer a significant difference in endoxifen concentrations between EM and IM patients (P = .84); however, the PM endoxifen concentration was still significantly lower. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of genotype-driven tamoxifen dosing and demonstrates that doubling the tamoxifen dose can increase endoxifen concentrations in IM and PM patients.
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi; Theresa Shao; Donna Buono; Aaron Kershenbaum; Wei-Yann Tsai; Louis Fehrenbacher; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Sunita Miles; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vered Stearns; Michael D Johnson; James M Rae; Alan Morocho; Antonella Novielli; Pankaj Bhargava; Daniel F Hayes; Zeruesenay Desta; David A Flockhart Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-12-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael D Johnson; Hong Zuo; Kyung-Hoon Lee; Joseph P Trebley; James Michael Rae; Ross V Weatherman; Zeruesanay Desta; David A Flockhart; Todd C Skaar Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: D G Bratherton; C H Brown; R Buchanan; V Hall; E M Kingsley Pillers; T K Wheeler; C J Williams Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1984-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Daniel L Hertz; Anna C Snavely; Howard L McLeod; Christine M Walko; Joseph G Ibrahim; Steven Anderson; Karen E Weck; Gustav Magrinat; Oludamilola Olajide; Susan Moore; Rachel Raab; Daniel R Carrizosa; Steven Corso; Garry Schwartz; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; James P Evans; David R Jones; Zeruesenay Desta; David A Flockhart; Lisa A Carey; William J Irvin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: John Valgus; Kristin W Weitzel; Josh F Peterson; Daniel J Crona; Christine M Formea Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: N T Brewer; J T Defrank; W K Chiu; J G Ibrahim; C M Walko; P Rubin; O A Olajide; S G Moore; R E Raab; D R Carrizosa; S W Corso; G Schwartz; J M Peppercorn; H L McLeod; L A Carey; W J Irvin Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Hiltrud Brauch; Werner Schroth; Matthew P Goetz; Thomas E Mürdter; Stefan Winter; James N Ingle; Matthias Schwab; Michel Eichelbaum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Lindsay J Collin; James W Baurley; Anders Kjærsgaard; Rebecca Nash; Maret L Maliniak; Per Damkier; Michael E Zwick; R Benjamin Isett; Peer M Christiansen; Bent Ejlertsen; Kristina L Lauridsen; Kristina B Christensen; Rebecca A Silliman; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Trine Tramm; Stephen Hamilton-Dutoit; Timothy L Lash; Deirdre Cronin-Fenton Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mariella De Ameida Melo; Rodrigo José De Vasconcelos-Valença; Fidelis Manes Neto; Rafael Soares Borges; Danylo Rafhael Costa-Silva; Maria Da Conceição Barros-Oliveira; Umbelina Soares Borges; Airlane Pereira Alencar; Vladimir Costa Silva; Benedito Borges Da Silva Journal: Biomed Rep Date: 2016-10-04