| Literature DB >> 30100989 |
Matthias F Froelich1, Sebastian Stintzing2,3,4, Jörg Kumbrink1,3,4, Thomas G P Grünewald1,4,5, Ulrich Mansmann4,6, Volker Heinemann2,3,4, Thomas Kirchner1,3,4, Andreas Jung1,3,4.
Abstract
Skin toxicity (ST) is a frequent adverse effect (AE) in anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) resulting in decreased quality of life and problems in clinical management. We wanted to identify biomarkers predicting ST in this setting and focused on 70 DNA polymorphisms associated with acne, the (immunoglobulin fragment crystallizable region) Fcγ-receptor pathway, and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) applying next-generation-sequencing (NGS). For the analysis patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab were selected from the FIRE-3 study. A training group consisting of the phenotypes low (1) - and high-grade (3) ST (n = 16) and a validation group (n = 55) representing also the intermediate grade (2) were genotyped and investigated in a genotype-phenotype association analysis. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs849142 significantly associated with ST in both the training- (p < 0.01) and validation-group (p = 0.04). rs849142 is located in an intron of the juxtaposed with another zinc finger protein 1 (JAZF1) gene. Haplotype analysis demonstrated significant linkage disequilibrium of rs849142 with JAZF1. Thus, rs849142 might be a predictive biomarker for ST in anti-EGFR treated mCRC patients. Its value in the clinical management of AE has to be validated in larger cohorts.Entities:
Keywords: SNPs; colorectal cancer; skin toxicity
Year: 2018 PMID: 30100989 PMCID: PMC6084390 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Composition of the evaluated training and validation patient groups
| Group | Age | Sex | Skin toxicity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | male | female | unknown | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 64.2 | 6 (37.50%) | 7 (43.75%) | 3 (18.75%) | 11 (68.75%) | 0 (0.00%) | 5 (31.25%) | |
| 62.4 | 43 (78.18%) | 12 (21.82%) | 0 (0.00%) | 19 (34.55%) | 16 (29.09%) | 20 (36.36%) | |
Figure 1PFS and OS Kaplan–Meier plots for cetuximab associated ST grades
Figure 2SNPs and respective genes selected for targeted sequencing (complete results in Supplementary Table 1)
FcRγ, Fc receptor γ; SLE, systemic lupus erythematodes. SNP; single nucleotide polymorphism.
Figure 3Manhattan plot for ST of patients from the Training group (A) or Validation group (B). SNP position on the chromosome is indicated by horizontal position. Y-axis value describes magnitude of evidence for association calculated as -log10(p value). Chr., chromosome.
Figure 4(A) Global- and sub-population allele frequencies of rs849142 (T>C) in comparison to the FIRE-3 patient collective as annotated at 1000genomes.org. (B) JAZF1 genomic region on Chromosome 7. JAZF1 and adjacent genes are shown. Position of rs849142 is indicated by the blue line. Reading direction of JAZF1 indicated by an arrowhead. Vertical bars indicate exons. JAZF1, Juxtaposed with another zinc finger protein 1. JAZF1-AS1, JAZF1 antisense RNA 1. (C) mRNA expression of JAZF1 (upper panel) and EGFR (lower panel) in various and ST related tissues as obtained from http://www.gtexportal.org. Expression is presented in RPKM (reads per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads).
Figure 5Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) Plot of Chromosome 7 28150kB ± 100 kB using Version 2 release 24 CEU (CEPH, Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe)
SNPs are presented in their genomic order. rs849142 is indicated by blue arrow. The reading direction (arrowhead) and exons (vertical bars) of the JAZF1 and the partially overlapping JAZF1-AS1 genes are indicated on top. The degree of positive correlation between two SNPs is visualized by color-coded squares at the intersection of orthogonal lines originating from each variant: White: low LD, low confidence; Shades of pink/red: low LD, high confidence; blue: high LD, low confidence; bright red: high LD, high confidence.
| Training | ST Grade 1 | ST Grade 2 | ST Grade 3 | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No variant call | 5 (83.33%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (16.67%) | 6 |
| C/C | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 |
| C/T | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (80%) | 5 |
| T/T | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 |
| Sum | 11 | 0 | 5 | 16 |
| Validation | ST Grade 1 | ST Grade 2 | ST Grade 3 | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No variant call | 1 (33.33%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (66.67%) | 3 |
| C/C | 8 (57.14%) | 3 (21.43%) | 3 (21.43%) | 14 |
| C/T | 8 (27.59%) | 11 (37.93%) | 10 (34.48%) | 29 |
| T/T | 2 (22.22%) | 2 (22.22%) | 5 (55.56%) | 9 |
| Sum | 19 | 16 | 20 | 55 |