| Literature DB >> 35322580 |
Xindi Zhang1, Matthew R Trendowski1, Emma Wilkinson1, Mohammad Shahbazi1, Paul C Dinh2, Megan M Shuey3, Darren R Feldman4, Robert J Hamilton5, David J Vaughn6, Chunkit Fung7, Christian Kollmannsberger8, Robert Huddart9, Neil E Martin10, Victoria A Sanchez11, Robert D Frisina12, Lawrence H Einhorn2, Nancy J Cox3, Lois B Travis2,13, M Eileen Dolan1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cisplatin is a critical component of first-line chemotherapy for several cancers, but causes peripheral sensory neuropathy, hearing loss, and tinnitus. We aimed to identify comorbidities for cisplatin-induced neurotoxicities among large numbers of similarly treated patients without the confounding effect of cranial radiotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990GWASzzm321990; cisplatin; neurotoxicity; ototoxicity; survivorship; testicular cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35322580 PMCID: PMC9302309 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4644
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.711
FIGURE 1Associations between survivor characteristics and cisplatin‐induced neurotoxicities. Forest plots of regression coefficients and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for: (A) cisplatin‐induced hearing loss, (B) cisplatin‐induced tinnitus, (C) cisplatin‐induced peripheral sensory neuropathy. All models were adjusted for age at clinical evaluation and cumulative cisplatin dosage. Bolded regression coefficients (95% CI) are significantly associated at α = 0.05. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.001
Demographic features, clinical characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes for 1258, 1217, and 1653 male germ cell tumor survivors included in studies for cisplatin‐induced hearing loss, tinnitus, and peripheral neuropathy
| Characteristic | Hearing loss | Tinnitus | Peripheral sensory neuropathy | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All survivors | No (Controls) | Yes (Cases) | All survivors | None | Mild | Severe | ||
|
| 1258 | 1217 | 979 | 238 | 1653 |
| 740 | 209 |
| Age at last observation, year, Median (range) | 37 (18–74) | 37 (18–75) | 36 (18–75) | 40 (18–74) | 37 (18–75) | 34 (18–72) | 38 (18–75) | 41 (20–65) |
| Age at testicular cancer diagnosis, year, Median (range) | 31 (10–60) | 30 (10–60) | 30 (10–60) | 32 (10–55) | 30 (10–60) | 28 (10–54) | 32 (10–60) | 34 (13–55) |
| Time since therapy completion, year, Median (range) | 4 (0–37) | 4 (0–37) | 4 (0–37) | 4 (0–35) | 4 (0–37) | 4 (0–37) | 4 (0–35) | 4 (0–37) |
| BMI at evaluation, kg/m2, Median (range) | 27 (18–67) | 27 (18–67) | 27 (18–60) | 28 (18–67) | 27 (18–67) | 27 (18–66) | 27 (18–54) | 29 (18–67) |
| Hearing thresholds, dB, Median (range) | 18 (1–96) | 18 (1–96) | 15 (1–93) | 38 (2–96) | 18 (1–96) | 15 (1–93) | 20 (2–94) | 28 (1–96) |
|
| ||||||||
| BEP | 696 (55.3) | 662 (54.5) | 534 (54.7) | 128 (53.8) | 897 (54.4) | 370 (52.7) | 431 (58.2) | 96 (45.9) |
| EP | 458 (36.4) | 462 (38.0) | 372 (38.1) | 90 (37.8) | 623 (37.7) | 271 (38.6) | 261 (35.3) | 91 (43.5) |
| VIP | 30 (2.4) | 20 (1.6) | 13 (1.3) | 7 (2.9) | 35 (2.1) | 12 (1.7) | 17 (2.3) | 6 (2.9) |
| VeIP | 1 (0.1) | 2 (0.2) | 2 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.1) | 2 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| PVB | 3 (0.2) | 2 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.4) | 4 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 2 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) |
| Other | 70 (5.6) | 67 (5.5) | 55 (5.6) | 12 (5.0) | 90 (5.5) | 46 (6.5) | 29 (3.9) | 15 (7.2) |
|
| ||||||||
| Median(range) | 400 (100–1000) | 400 (100–1000) | 400 (130–1000) | 400 (100–800) |
| 400 (190–600) | ||
| <300 | 59 (4.7) | 82 (6.8) | 68 (7.0) | 14 (5.9) | 102 (6.2) | 41 (5.9) | 50 (6.8) | 11 (5.3) |
| 300 | 468 (37.4) | 440 (36.5) | 366 (37.8) | 74 (31.1) | 592 (36.1) | 272 (39.1) | 271 (36.7) | 49 (23.5) |
| >300 and < 400 | 50 (4.0) | 42 (3.5) | 31 (3.2) | 11 (4.6) | 66 (4.0) | 23 (3.3) | 36 (4.9) | 7 (3.4) |
| 400 | 618 (49.5) | 579 (48.0) | 467 (48.3) | 112 (47.1) | 793 (48.3) | 318 (45.8) | 350 (47.4) | 125 (60.1) |
| >400 | 55 (4.4) | 63 (5.2) | 36 (3.7) | 27 (11.3) | 88 (5.4) | 41 (5.9) | 31 (4.2) | 16 (7.7) |
|
| ||||||||
| Yes | 53 (4.5) |
| 23 (2.4) | 30 (14.4) |
|
|
|
|
| No | 1125 (95.5) |
| 926 (97.6) | 178 (85.6) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Excellent | 210 (16.9) |
| 172 (17.7) | 22 (9.3) |
|
|
|
|
| Very good | 524 (42.2) |
| 432 (44.4) | 70 (29.4) |
|
|
|
|
| Good | 419 (33.7) |
| 315 (32.3) | 106 (44.5) |
|
|
|
|
| Poor/fair | 90 (7.2) |
| 55 (5.6) | 40 (16.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Yes | 142 (11.8) |
| 85 (9.1) | 51 (22.8) |
|
|
| 4 |
| No | 1057 (88.2) |
| 850 (90.9) | 173 (77.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Yes | 131 (10.9) |
| 90 (9.5) | 41 (18.5) |
|
|
|
|
| No | 1072 (89.1) |
| 859 (90.5) | 181 (81.5) |
|
|
|
|
Note: Data presented as number (%) unless otherwise noted.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; BEP, bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin; EP, etoposide and cisplatin; VIP, cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide; VeIP, cisplatin, vinblastine, and ifosfamide; PVB, cisplatin, bleomycin, and maintenance vinblastine.
One thousand two hundred and fifty‐eight patients were included with quantitative values modeled using the geometric mean of bilateral average air conduction thresholds measured at frequencies between 4 and 12 kHz as described previously. ,
Tinnitus phenotype excludes 463 participants who did not answer‐related questions. Cases are restricted to survivors who reported “quite a bit” or “very much” tinnitus. Survivors who reported “a little” tinnitus (n = 426) are excluded from the table and all analyses.
Following conversion of the Likert scale: “none, a little, quite a bit, very much” to a 0–3 numeric scale, we created four categories to represent the severity of peripheral neuropathy using a summary statistic and combined groups 2 and 3. Phenotype excludes 27 participants for whom the variables were not stated.
BEP category includes survivors who received only bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin; EP includes survivors who received only etoposide and cisplatin. VIP includes survivors who received only cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide; VeIP includes survivors who received only cisplatin, vinblastine, and ifosfamide; PVB includes survivors who received only cisplatin, bleomycin, and maintenance vinblastine. Both tinnitus and peripheral sensory neuropathy had two survivors with missing dose data.
Category excludes eight participants with incomplete dose data for hearing loss, 11 for tinnitus, and 12 for peripheral neuropathy.
Persistent vertigo or dizziness status was not stated for 80 hearing loss participants, 60 tinnitus participants, and 95 peripheral sensory neuropathy participants.
Self‐reported health status was not stated for 15 hearing loss participants, five tinnitus participants, and six peripheral sensory neuropathy participants.
Hypertension status was not stated for 59 participants with hearing loss, 58 participants with tinnitus, and 74 participants with peripheral sensory neuropathy.
FIGURE 2Effect of cumulative cisplatin dose on cisplatin‐induced tinnitus, hearing loss, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. (A) Boxplot showing hearing thresholds by cumulative cisplatin dose group (<300, 300, 400, and >400 mg/m2) illustrates significantly increased risk of hearing loss in patients treated with doses 400 mg/m2 compared to 300 and >400 mg/m2 compared to 400 mg/m2; (B) bar plot showing the frequency of tinnitus by cumulative cisplatin dose group demonstrated significantly increased risk of tinnitus in doses >400 mg/m2‐treated‐survivors compared to 400 mg/m2‐treated‐survivors. (C) Bar plot showing the frequency of severe peripheral neuropathy by cumulative cisplatin dose group illustrates significantly increased risk of peripheral neuropathy in patients treated with doses 400 mg/m2 compared to 300 mg/m2‐treated‐survivors. The number of subjects per category is presented on the x axis under the dose group label. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.005
FIGURE 3Genome‐wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene‐based association studies of cisplatin‐induced hearing loss. (A) Manhattan plot of genome‐wide association study (GWAS) results for cisplatin‐induced hearing loss. (B) Quantile–Quantile plot of GWAS results for cisplatin‐induced hearing loss. Covariates in the GWAS include cumulative cisplatin dose, age at clinical evaluation, and 10 European genetic principal components accounting for population substructure. (C) Manhattan plot of the gene‐based association analysis identifies TXNRD1 (p = 4.2 × 10−6) as nearly genome‐wide significant. Summary statistics for SNP‐based GWAS were uploaded to functional mapping and annotation to run a gene‐based association analysis based on a multiple linear principal components regression to determine the aggregated effect of all SNPs within a gene. Inputted SNPs were mapped to 18,544 protein coding genes, producing a significance threshold of p = 0.05/18,544 (2.7 × 10−6). (D) Quantile–Quantile plot of results from the gene‐based association analysis. (E) Scatter plots of cisplatin sensitivity as a function of normalized TXNRD1 expression in central nervous system (CNS) tumor cell lines (ρ = 0.4, p = 0.04; R 2 = 0.1, p = 0.03). Cisplatin sensitivity, measured as the area under the cisplatin dose–response curve, for all CNS tumor cell lines extracted from CancerRX. Gene expression data were downloaded from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia. Expression data were rank normalized to fit a normal distribution prior to analysis. Correlation was assessed nonparametrically using the Spearman rank method, as well as by linear regression
FIGURE 4Genome‐wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene‐based association studies of cisplatin‐induced tinnitus. (A) Manhattan plot of genome‐wide association study (GWAS) results for cisplatin‐induced tinnitus. (B) Quantile–Quantile plot of GWAS results for cisplatin‐induced tinnitus. Covariates in the GWAS include cumulative cisplatin dose, noise exposure, age at clinical evaluation, and five European genetic principal components accounting for population substructure. (C) Manhattan plot of the gene‐based association analysis identifies WNT8A (p = 2.5 × 10−6) as genome‐wide significant. Summary statistics for SNP‐based GWAS were uploaded to functional mapping and annotation to run a gene‐based association analysis based on a multiple linear principal components regression to determine the aggregated effect of all SNPs within a gene. Inputted SNPs were mapped to 18,819 protein coding genes, producing a significance threshold of p = 0.05/18,819 (2.7 × 10−6). (D) Quantile–Quantile plot of results from the gene‐based association analysis
FIGURE 5Genome‐wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene‐based association studies of cisplatin‐induced peripheral sensory neuropathy (A) Manhattan plot of genome‐wide association study (GWAS) results for cisplatin‐induced peripheral sensory neuropathy. (B) Quantile–Quantile plot of GWAS results for cisplatin‐induced peripheral sensory neuropathy. Covariates in both GWAS include age at diagnosis and 10 European genetic principal components accounting for population substructure. (C) Manhattan plot of the gene‐based association analysis identifies no genome‐wide significant genes. Summary statistics for SNP‐based GWAS were uploaded to functional mapping and annotation to run a gene‐based association analysis based on a multiple linear principal components regression to determine the aggregated effect of all SNPs within a gene. Inputted SNPs were mapped to 18,106 protein coding genes, producing a significance threshold of p = 0.05/18,106 (2.8 × 10−6). (D) Quantile–Quantile plot of results from the gene‐based association analysis