Felicia Stefania Falvella1, Stefania Cheli1, Antonia Martinetti2, Cristina Mazzali3,4, Roberto Iacovelli2, Claudia Maggi2, Manuela Gariboldi5,6, Marco Alessandro Pierotti7, Maria Di Bartolomeo2, Elisa Sottotetti2, Roberta Mennitto2, Ilaria Bossi2, Filippo de Braud2, Emilio Clementi8,9, Filippo Pietrantonio2. 1. Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University Hospital 'Luigi Sacco', Università di Milano, Milan, Italy. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University Hospital 'Luigi Sacco', Università di Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Experimental Oncology and Molecular Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 6. FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology Foundation, Milan, Italy. 7. Scientific Directorate, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 8. Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, Bosisio Parini, Lecco, Italy. 9. Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Biomedical, Clinical Sciences, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Institute of Neuroscience, University Hospital 'Luigi Sacco', Università di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: Triplet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan is a standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in DPYD and UGT1A1 influence fluoropyrimdines and irinotecan adverse events (AEs). Low frequency DPYD variants (c.1905 + 1G > A, c.1679 T > G, c.2846A > T) are validated but more frequent ones (c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G and c.1896 T > C) are not. rs895819 T > C polymorphism in hsa-mir-27a is associated with reduced DPD activity. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of a pharmacogenetic panel for patients receiving triplet combinations. METHODS: Germline DNA was available from 64 CRC patients enrolled between 2008 and 2013 in two phase II trials of capecitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus bevacizumab or cetuximab. SNPs were determined by Real-Time PCR. We evaluated the functional variants in DPYD (rare: c.1905 + 1G > A, c.1679 T > G, c.2846A > T; most common: c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G, c.1896 T > C), hsa-mir-27a (rs895819) and UGT1A1 (*28) genes to assess their association with grade 3-4 AEs. RESULTS: None of the patients carried rare DPYD variants. We found DPYD c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G, c.1896 T > C in heterozygosity in 19%, 5% and 8%, respectively, homozygous rs895819 in hsa-mir-27a in 9% and homozygous UGT1A1*28 in 8%. Grade 3-4 AEs were observed in 36% patients and were associated with DPYD c.496A > G (odds ratio (OR) 4.93, 95% CI 1.29, 18.87; P = 0.021) and homozygous rs895819 in hsa-mir-27a (OR 11.11, 95% CI 1.21, 102.09; P = 0.020). Carriers of DPYD c.1896 T > C and homozygous UGT1A1*28 showed an OR of 8.42 (95% CI 0.88, 80.56; P = 0.052). Multivariate analysis confirmed an independent value for DPYD c.496A > G and c.1896 T > C. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant assessment of DPYD variants and the UGT1A1*28 allele is a promising strategy needing further validation for dose personalization.
AIMS: Triplet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan is a standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in DPYD and UGT1A1 influence fluoropyrimdines and irinotecan adverse events (AEs). Low frequency DPYD variants (c.1905 + 1G > A, c.1679 T > G, c.2846A > T) are validated but more frequent ones (c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G and c.1896 T > C) are not. rs895819 T > C polymorphism in hsa-mir-27a is associated with reduced DPD activity. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of a pharmacogenetic panel for patients receiving triplet combinations. METHODS: Germline DNA was available from 64 CRCpatients enrolled between 2008 and 2013 in two phase II trials of capecitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus bevacizumab or cetuximab. SNPs were determined by Real-Time PCR. We evaluated the functional variants in DPYD (rare: c.1905 + 1G > A, c.1679 T > G, c.2846A > T; most common: c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G, c.1896 T > C), hsa-mir-27a (rs895819) and UGT1A1 (*28) genes to assess their association with grade 3-4 AEs. RESULTS: None of the patients carried rare DPYD variants. We found DPYD c.496A > G, c.1129-5923C > G, c.1896 T > C in heterozygosity in 19%, 5% and 8%, respectively, homozygous rs895819 in hsa-mir-27a in 9% and homozygous UGT1A1*28 in 8%. Grade 3-4 AEs were observed in 36% patients and were associated with DPYD c.496A > G (odds ratio (OR) 4.93, 95% CI 1.29, 18.87; P = 0.021) and homozygous rs895819 in hsa-mir-27a (OR 11.11, 95% CI 1.21, 102.09; P = 0.020). Carriers of DPYD c.1896 T > C and homozygous UGT1A1*28 showed an OR of 8.42 (95% CI 0.88, 80.56; P = 0.052). Multivariate analysis confirmed an independent value for DPYD c.496A > G and c.1896 T > C. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant assessment of DPYD variants and the UGT1A1*28 allele is a promising strategy needing further validation for dose personalization.
Authors: Linda J M Oostendorp; Peep F Stalmeier; Pieternel C Pasker-de Jong; Winette T Van der Graaf; Petronella B Ottevanger Journal: Anticancer Drugs Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: E Bajetta; L Celio; E Ferrario; M Di Bartolomeo; A Denaro; K Dotti; M Mancin; R Bajetta; A Colombo; S Pusceddu Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: André B P van Kuilenburg; Judith Meijer; Adri N P M Mul; Rutger Meinsma; Veronika Schmid; Doreen Dobritzsch; Raoul C M Hennekam; Marcel M A M Mannens; Marion Kiechle; Marie-Christine Etienne-Grimaldi; Heinz-Josef Klümpen; Jan Gerard Maring; Veerle A Derleyn; Ed Maartense; Gérard Milano; Raymon Vijzelaar; Eva Gross Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2010-08-29 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Eva Gross; Tobias Ullrich; Katharina Seck; Volkmar Mueller; Maike de Wit; Christoph von Schilling; Alfons Meindl; Manfred Schmitt; Marion Kiechle Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: C-H Köhne; J De Greve; J T Hartmann; I Lang; P Vergauwe; K Becker; D Braumann; E Joosens; L Müller; J Janssens; C Bokemeyer; P Reimer; H Link; E Späth-Schwalbe; H-J Wilke; H Bleiberg; J Van Den Brande; M Debois; U Bethe; E Van Cutsem Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-12-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; John Marshall; Edith Mitchell; Rafal Wierzbicki; Vinod Ganju; Mark Jeffery; Joseph Schulz; Donald Richards; Raoudha Soufi-Mahjoubi; Benjamin Wang; José Barrueco Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Q Nie; S Shrestha; E E Tapper; C S Trogstad-Isaacson; K J Bouchonville; A M Lee; R Wu; C R Jerde; Z Wang; P A Kubica; S M Offer; R B Diasio Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Bhavina B Sharma; Karan Rai; Heather Blunt; Wenyan Zhao; Tor D Tosteson; Gabriel A Brooks Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Seid Hamzic; Dominic Schärer; Steven M Offer; Didier Meulendijks; Christos Nakas; Robert B Diasio; Stefano Fontana; Marc Wehrli; Stefan Schürch; Ursula Amstutz; Carlo R Largiadèr Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 4.335