OBJECTIVES: Tamoxifen bioactivation to endoxifen is mediated primarily by CYP2D6; however, considerable variability remains unexplained. Our aim was to perform a comprehensive assessment of the effect of genetic variation in tamoxifen-relevant enzymes and transporters on steady-state endoxifen concentrations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comprehensive genotyping of CYP enzymes and transporters was performed using the iPLEX ADME PGx Pro Panel in 302 tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. Predicted activity phenotype for 19 enzymes and transporters were analyzed for univariate association with endoxifen concentration, and then adjusted for CYP2D6 and clinical covariates. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, higher activity of CYP2C8 (regression β=0.22, P=0.020) and CYP2C9 (β=0.20, P=0.04), lower body weight (β=-0.014, P<0.0001), and endoxifen measurement during winter (each β<-0.39, P=0.002) were associated with higher endoxifen concentrations. After adjustment for the CYP2D6 diplotype, weight, and season, CYP2C9 remained significantly associated with higher concentrations (P=0.02), but only increased the overall model R by 1.3%. CONCLUSION: Our results further support a minor contribution of CYP2C9 genetic variability toward steady-state endoxifen concentrations. Integration of clinician and genetic variables into individualized tamoxifen dosing algorithms would marginally improve their accuracy and potentially enhance tamoxifen treatment outcomes.
OBJECTIVES:Tamoxifen bioactivation to endoxifen is mediated primarily by CYP2D6; however, considerable variability remains unexplained. Our aim was to perform a comprehensive assessment of the effect of genetic variation in tamoxifen-relevant enzymes and transporters on steady-state endoxifen concentrations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comprehensive genotyping of CYP enzymes and transporters was performed using the iPLEX ADME PGx Pro Panel in 302 tamoxifen-treated breast cancerpatients. Predicted activity phenotype for 19 enzymes and transporters were analyzed for univariate association with endoxifen concentration, and then adjusted for CYP2D6 and clinical covariates. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, higher activity of CYP2C8 (regression β=0.22, P=0.020) and CYP2C9 (β=0.20, P=0.04), lower body weight (β=-0.014, P<0.0001), and endoxifen measurement during winter (each β<-0.39, P=0.002) were associated with higher endoxifen concentrations. After adjustment for the CYP2D6 diplotype, weight, and season, CYP2C9 remained significantly associated with higher concentrations (P=0.02), but only increased the overall model R by 1.3%. CONCLUSION: Our results further support a minor contribution of CYP2C9 genetic variability toward steady-state endoxifen concentrations. Integration of clinician and genetic variables into individualized tamoxifen dosing algorithms would marginally improve their accuracy and potentially enhance tamoxifen treatment outcomes.
Authors: Eduardo Martinez de Dueñas; Enrique Ochoa Aranda; Isabel Blancas Lopez-Barajas; Teresa Ferrer Magdalena; Fernando Bandrés Moya; Luis Miguel Chicharro García; José A Gómez Capilla; Mercedes Zafra Ceres; Tomás de Haro; Regina Romero Llorens; Carlos Ferrer Albiach; Rafael Ferriols Lisart; Dolores Chover Lara; Angela López Rodríguez; Javier Munárriz Ferrandis; Santiago Olmos Antón Journal: Breast Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Silvana Borges; Zeruesenay Desta; Lang Li; Todd C Skaar; Bryan A Ward; Anne Nguyen; Yan Jin; Anna Maria Storniolo; D Michele Nikoloff; Lin Wu; Grant Hillman; Daniel F Hayes; Vered Stearns; David A Flockhart Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: L Madlensky; L Natarajan; S Tchu; M Pu; J Mortimer; S W Flatt; D M Nikoloff; G Hillman; M R Fontecha; H J Lawrence; B A Parker; A H B Wu; J P Pierce Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Daniel L Hertz; Allison Deal; Joseph G Ibrahim; Christine M Walko; Karen E Weck; Steven Anderson; Gustav Magrinat; Oludamilola Olajide; Susan Moore; Rachel Raab; Daniel R Carrizosa; Steven Corso; Garry Schwartz; Mark Graham; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; David R Jones; Zeruesenay Desta; David A Flockhart; James P Evans; Howard L McLeod; Lisa A Carey; William J Irvin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-05-25
Authors: K Beelen; M Opdam; T M Severson; R H T Koornstra; A D Vincent; M Hauptmann; R H N van Schaik; E M J J Berns; J B Vermorken; P J van Diest; S C Linn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: P Saladores; T Mürdter; D Eccles; B Chowbay; N K Zgheib; S Winter; B Ganchev; B Eccles; S Gerty; A Tfayli; J S L Lim; Y S Yap; R C H Ng; N S Wong; R Dent; M Z Habbal; E Schaeffeler; M Eichelbaum; W Schroth; M Schwab; H Brauch Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Lauren A Marcath; Kelley M Kidwell; Adam C Robinson; Kiran Vangipuram; Monika L Burness; Jennifer J Griggs; Catherine Van Poznak; Anne F Schott; Daniel F Hayes; Norah Lynn Henry; Daniel L Hertz Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Burhan A Khan; Renee Robinson; Alison E Fohner; LeeAnna I Muzquiz; Brian D Schilling; Julie A Beans; Matthew J Olnes; Laura Trawicki; Holly Frydenlund; Cindi Laukes; Patrick Beatty; Brian Phillips; Deborah Nickerson; Kevin Howlett; Denise A Dillard; Timothy A Thornton; Kenneth E Thummel; Erica L Woodahl Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.689