ePrints

Association of Molecular Markers With Toxicity Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Chemotherapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: The FOCUS Trial

Lookup NU author(s): Professor James Allan

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.

Abstract

Purpose Predicting efficacy and toxicity could potentially allow individualization of cancer therapy. We investigated putative pharmacogenetic markers of chemotherapy toxicity in a large randomized trial. Patients, Materials, and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to different sequences of chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. First-line therapy was fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan/FU (IrFU) or oxaliplatin/FU (OxFU). Patients allocated first-line FU had planned second-line irinotecan alone, IrFU, or OxFU. The primary toxicity outcome measure was toxicity-induced delay or dose reduction; the secondary outcome was Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade >= 3 toxicity. DNA was analyzed in 1,188 patients; 1,036 were assessable for the primary outcome, including 688 treated with FU, 270 with IrFU (first or second line), 280 with OxFU (first or second line), 184 with irinotecan alone, and 454 with any irinotecan-containing regimen. Ten polymorphisms were assessed: thymidylate synthase-enhancer region (TYMS-ER), thymidylate synthase 1494 (TYMS-1494), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), UDP glucuronyltransferase (UGT1A1), ATP-binding cassette group B gene 1 (ABCB1), x-ray cross-complementing group 1 (XRCC1), glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1), and excision repair cross-complementing gene 2 (ERCC2). Results Using the primary outcome measure, no polymorphism was significantly associated (P<.01) with the toxicity of any regimen or with the difference in toxicity of IrFU or OxFU versus FU alone. Trends (of doubtful significance) were seen for associations of XRCC1, ERCC2, and GSTP1 with toxicity during irinotecan regimens: XRCC1, primary end point, any irinotecan-containing regimen (P = .045); ERCC2, secondary end point, irinotecan alone (P = .003); GSTP1, secondary end point; IrFU ( P = .039); and irinotecan alone (P = .05). There was no evidence of association of UGT1A1*28 with irinotecan toxicity. Conclusion These results do not support the routine clinical use of the evaluated polymorphisms, including UGT1A1*28. Further investigation of XRCC1, ERCC2, and GSTP1 as potential predictors of irinotecan toxicity is warranted.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Braun MS, Richman SD, Thompson L, Daly CL, Meade AM, Adlard JW, Allan JM, Parmar MKB, Quirke P, Seymour MT

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology

Year: 2009

Volume: 27

Issue: 33

Pages: 5519-5528

ISSN (print): 0732-183X

ISSN (electronic): 1527-7755

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6283

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6283

Altmetrics

Share