Influence of ABCB1 and ABCG2 polymorphisms on the antiemetic efficacy in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a TRIPLE pharmacogenomics study

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impacts of germline pharmacogenomics on severe toxicity and symptom burden in adult patients with cancer

The clinical application of Pharmacogenomics (PGx) has improved patient safety. However, comprehensive PGx testing has not been widely adopted in clinical practice, and significant opportunities exist to further optimize PGx in cancer care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the safety outcomes of reported PGx-guided strategies (Analysis 1) and identify well-studied emerging pharmacogenomic variants that predict severe toxicity and symptom burden (Analysis 2) in patients with cancer. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to January 2023 for clinical trials or comparative studies evaluating PGx strategies or unconfirmed pharmacogenomic variants. The primary outcomes were severe adverse events (SAE; ≥ grade 3) or symptom burden with pain and vomiting as defined by trial protocols and assessed by trial investigators. We calculated pooled overall relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) using random effects models. PROSPERO, registration number CRD42023421277. Of 6811 records screened, six studies were included for Analysis 1, 55 studies for Analysis 2. Meta-analysis 1 (five trials, 1892 participants) showed a lower absolute incidence of SAEs with PGx-guided strategies compared to usual therapy, 16.1% versus 34.0% (RR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.57-0.91, p = 0.006, I2 = 34%). Meta-analyses 2 identified nine medicine(class)-variant pairs of interest across the TYMS, ABCB1, UGT1A1, HLA-DRB1, and OPRM1 genes. Application of PGx significantly reduced rates of SAEs in patients with cancer. Emergent medicine-variant pairs herald further research into the expansion and optimization of PGx to improve systemic anti-cancer and supportive care medicine safety and efficacy.

A randomized trial evaluating the association between related gene polymorphism and nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We aim to investigate the correlation between gene polymorphisms and cisplatin chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), which was prevented by olanzapine or aprepitant triple antiemetic regimen.

METHODS

Before chemotherapy, the blood samples of 89 malignant tumor patients who received multi-day chemotherapy with cisplatin were collected for sequencing and typing. As there were duplicate patients enrolled in different chemotherapy cycles, there were a total of 190 cases. The patients were divided into two groups randomly, who received the triple antiemetic regimen of olanzapine or aprepitant combined with 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone. The main evaluation indicators were the total protection (TP) rate in the acute phase (0-24 h), the delayed phase (25-120 h) and the overall phase (0-120 h).

RESULTS

Univariate analysis was performed on genetic loci that reached H-W balance with TP. In the olanzapine group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. In the aprepitant group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with the MTHFR rs1801131 TT (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1062613 CC (P < 0.05) genetype ect. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that HTR3B rs7943062GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. were correlated with increased TP in the delayed phase. MTHFR rs1801131TT genotype was associated with increased TP in the acute phase (P < 0.05) and delayed phase (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study found that gene polymorphisms, including HTR3B (rs1062613, rs1176719, rs2276303), HTR3B (rs45460698, rs7943062), HTR3C (rs6766410), ERCC1 (rs3212986), ERCC4 (rs744154) and MTHFR(rs1801131), may be independent prognostic factors for CINV.

Metagenomics and chemotherapy-induced nausea: A roadmap for future research

Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can reduce patients' quality of life and may result in premature discontinuation of chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting are commonly grouped together, research has shown that antiemetics are clinically effective against chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) but less so against chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). Nausea remains a problem for up to 68% of patients who are prescribed guideline-consistent antiemetics. Despite the high prevalence of CIN, relatively little is known regarding its etiology independent of CIV. This review summarizes a metagenomics approach to the study and treatment of CIN with the goal of encouraging future research. Metagenomics focuses on genetic risk factors and encompasses both human (ie, host) and gut microbial genetic variation. Little work to date has focused on metagenomics as a putative biological mechanism of CIN. Metagenomics has the potential to be a powerful tool in advancing scientific understanding of CIN by identifying new biological pathways and intervention targets. The investigation of metagenomics in the context of well-established demographic, clinical, and patient-reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk and facilitate the prevention and management of CIN.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

An Update in Our Understanding of the Relationships Between Gene Polymorphisms and Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The occurrence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are influenced by many factors; this includes therapeutic factors, such as the dose, administration mode, and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenicity, as well as patient-related risk factors, such as the gender, age, alcohol consumption history, and anxiety level. However, these factors cannot fully explain the individual CINV differences. In recent years, the correlation between gene polymorphism and CINV has been a hot research topic; the present paper reviews current research on CINV-related gene polymorphisms, and the results indicate that the use of gene polymorphism for the optimization of CINV efficacy is of important clinical significance.

Clinical Observation of Gene Polymorphism of Olanzapine or Aprepitant in Prevention of CINV

Objective

The present study aims to investigate the correlation between the gene polymorphisms of the multidrug resistance protein 1 (ABCB1), the intron region of transcriptional factor (GTF2E1) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), dopamine receptor (DRD2), and the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by olanzapine or aprepitant in a Chinese population under a fractionated cisplatin dosing pattern.

Methods

Antiemetic treatment with 5 mg of olanzapine or aprepitant triplet therapy was conducted in 210 patients with malignancies receiving cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy. The general data on the patients were collected with the evaluation of the rate of complete protection (TP), complete remission (CR), complete control (TC), and time to first vomiting, the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) scale, and side effects in the acute and delayed phases. The DNA mass spectrometry detected the gene polymorphisms of ABCB1, GTF2E1, COMT, and DRD2, and the correlation with TP was analyzed.

Results

1) There were no statistically significant differences in the TP, CR, TC, time of first vomiting, and FLIE index at different phases between the 5mg of olanzapine group and the aprepitant group (P > 0.05). 2) The main side effect in the olanzapine group was drowsiness (P = 0.00), and in the aprepitant group was constipation (P = 0.02). 3) The distributions of each genotype were in the Hardy–Weinberg (H–W) equilibrium. Univariate analysis showed that in the olanzapine group, delayed-phase TP was correlated with the ABCB1 rs1045642 non-TT (P = 0.01) genotype.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that females and the rs1045642TT genotype were independent risk factors for delayed-phase CINV in the northern Chinese population, which provided a scientific basis for subsequent CINV-related analysis of high-risk factors in Chinese patients.

Pharmacogenetics of antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A substantial proportion of cancer patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) despite the use of antiemetic drugs. Prevalent genetic polymorphisms involved in antiemetic drug metabolism, drug transport and receptor pathways likely affect the effectiveness of antiemetics. Knowledge on which polymorphisms to integrate into individualised clinical care is needed. We did a systematic review evaluating the association between polymorphisms and effectiveness of antiemetics in cancer patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Twenty studies n = 2331 evaluated eight polymorphisms in five candidate genes involved in 5-HT₃ antagonist pathways. HTR3C C1214G increased the risk of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in the dominant model (odds ratio (OR) = 2.67, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.08-6.63). ABCB1 C3435T reduced the risk of acute CINV in the recessive model (OR = 0.60, 95 % CI: 0.44-0.81). Future studies should evaluate candidate genes that affect pharmacogenetics of other antiemetics beside 5-HT₃ antagonists.

Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)

Background

We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Methods

We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120 h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1 mg (n = 413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75 mg (n = 414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Results

The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group (P = 0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR.

Conclusions

We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40780-018-0128-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical and pharmacogenetics associated with recovery time from general anesthesia

AIM

Delayed recovery from general anesthesia is a well-known complication that requires predictive tools and approaches. This study aimed to determine significant factors associated with postanesthesia recovery and to develop an algorithm for estimating recovery time from general anesthesia.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The genotypes of patients were determined by SNaPshot or ARMS-qPCR. The algorithm was developed via machine-learning and tested by the worm plot.

RESULTS

Results showed that OPRM1 rs1799971 (p = 0.006) and ABCG2 rs2231142 (p = 0.041) were significantly associated with recovery time. Ten factors after random forest and stepwise selection were associated with recovery time. Ten factors after random forest and stepwise selection were associated with recovery time. Meanwhile, seven factors were associated with delayed recovery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that both clinical and pharmacogenetic data are significantly associated with recovery from general anesthesia and provide the basis for pre-emptive prediction tools.

Prediction of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting from patient-reported and genetic risk factors

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common among cancer patients. Early identification of patients at risk for CINV may help to personalize anti-emetic therapies. To date, few studies have examined the combined contributions of patient-reported and genetic risk factors to CINV. The goal of this study was to evaluate these risk factors.

METHODS

Prior to their first chemotherapy infusion, participants completed demographic and risk factor questionnaires and provided a blood sample to measure genetic variants in ABCB1 (rs1045642) and HTR3B (rs45460698) as well as CYP2D6 activity score. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory was completed at 24 h and 5-day post-infusion to assess the severity of acute and delayed CINV, respectively.

RESULTS

Participants were 88 patients (55% female, M = 60 years). A total of 23% experienced acute nausea and 55% delayed nausea. Younger age, history of pregnancy-related nausea, fewer hours slept the night prior to infusion, and variation in ABCB1 were associated with more severe acute nausea; advanced-stage cancer and receipt of highly emetogenic chemotherapy were associated with more severe delayed nausea (p values < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, ABCB1 added an additional 5% predictive value beyond the 13% variance explained by patient-reported risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study identified patient-reported and genetic factors that may place patients at risk for acute nausea despite receipt of guideline-consistent anti-emetic prophylaxis. Additional studies examining other genetic variants are needed, as well as the development of risk prediction models including both patient-reported and genetic risk factors.

MicroRNA-595 sensitizes ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin by targeting ABCB1

Ovarian cancer is among the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in females. In this study, we demonstrated that miR-595 expression was downregulated in the ovarian cancer tissues and cell lines. miR-595 expression was lower in the lymph node metastases tissues than in the primary ovarian cancer tissues and normal tissues. Furthermore, miR-595 overexpression suppressed the ovarian cancer cell proliferation, colony formation and invasion and promoted the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cell to cisplatin. We identified ABCB1 as a direct target gene of miR-595 in the ovarian cancer cell. ABCB1 expression was upregulated in the ovarian cancer tissues and cell lines. Morevoer, the expression level of ABCB1 was inversely correlated with miR-595 in the ovarian cancer tissues. In addition, overexpression of ABCB1 decreased the miR-595-overexpressing HO8910PM and SKOV-3 cell sensitivity to cisplatin. Ectopic expression of ABCB1 promoted the miR-595-overexpressing HO8910PM and SKOV-3 cell proliferation, colony formation and invasion. These data suggested that miR-595 acted a tumor suppressor role in ovarian cancer development and increased the sensitivity of ovarian cancer to cisplatin.

Applicability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Southeast Asia: A Consensus Statement

A meeting of regional experts was convened in Manila, Philippines, to develop a resource-stratified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management guideline. In patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in general clinical settings, triple therapy with a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT₃]) antagonist (preferably palonosetron), dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for acute CINV prevention. In resource-restricted settings, triple therapy is still recommended, although a 5-HT₃ antagonist other than palonosetron may be used. In both general and resource-restricted settings, dual therapy with dexamethasone (days 2 to 4) and aprepitant (days 2 to 3) is recommended to prevent delayed CINV. In patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dual therapy with a 5-HT₃ antagonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for acute CINV prevention in general settings; any 5-HT₃ antagonist can be combined with dexamethasone in resource-restricted environments. In general settings, for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, corticosteroid monotherapy on days 2 and 3 is recommended. If aprepitant is used on day 1, it should be continued on days 2 and 3. Prevention of delayed CINV with corticosteroids is preferred in resource-restricted settings. The expert panel also developed CINV management guidelines for anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide combination schedules, multiday cisplatin, and chemotherapy with low or minimal emetogenic potential, and its recommendations are detailed in this review. Overall, these regional guidelines provide definitive guidance for CINV management in general and resource-restricted settings. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to contribute to collaborative efforts to improve CINV management in Southeast Asia.

Genetic risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Younger age and female sex have already been well-known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and 30-50% of cancer patients still suffer from CINV. Genetic polymorphisms are suggested to influence antiemetic treatment response.

METHODS

This study included a subset of patients previously enrolled in a randomised controlled trial; 156 patients were evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of pharmacogenomic polymorphisms relevant to antiemetic response in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study's efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR). The study endpoint was evaluated separately in the acute (CR_0-24) and delayed (CR_24-120) phases. Thirteen polymorphisms were genotyped, and the association of these genotypes with the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics was then investigated. Confounding variables for the CR were identified using stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis. Age and sex were included as independent variables by the forced-entry method, and the stepwise method was used to select the pharmacogenomic factors for inclusion as independent variables.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 8092AA (odds ratio [OR] = 11.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-72.71; p = 0.011) and female sex (OR = 3.63; 95% CI 1.14-11.58; p = 0.029) were significant predictors of CR_0-24. No significant association of CR_24-120 with pharmacogenomic polymorphisms was found via multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCC1 polymorphism influenced the extent of CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial information: UMIN 000009335.

Genetic Risk Factors Associated With Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Emesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049).

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Polymorphisms in CYP1A1 and CYP3A5 Genes Contribute to the Variability in Granisetron Clearance and Exposure in Pregnant Women with Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting affect up to 90% of pregnant women. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective serotonin receptor antagonist and is an effective antiemetic. Findings from a prior study in pregnant women demonstrated a large interindividual variability in granisetron exposure. Granisetron is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP1A1 and CYP3A and is likely a substrate of the ABCB1 transporter. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CYP3A, CYP1A1, and ABCB1 can alter drug metabolism.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the influence of polymorphisms in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP1A1, and ABCB1 on the pharmacokinetic properties of granisetron in pregnant women.

METHODS

The study enrolled 16 pregnant women (gestational age of 12-19 wks). All patients had nausea and vomiting and were treated with granisetron 1 mg. Granisetron plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry. The patients' genotype was determined using TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assays. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was assessed by comparing observed and expected genotype frequencies, using the exact test. Intravenous granisetron clearance was used as the dependent variable for analysis of associations.

RESULTS

Of 16 patients, 25% were homozygous for the allele variant CYP3A5*3 and had a significantly lower granisetron clearance and increased area under the plasma concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) compared with nonhomozygous patients. Approximately one-third of patients (n=5) were carriers for the allele variant CYP1A1*2A and had a significantly higher granisetron clearance and decreased AUC. We did not find significant differences in the AUC or clearance for any SNPs in CYP3A4 and ABCB1 genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Polymorphisms in CYP3A5 and CYP1A1 account for some of the variability in systemic clearance and exposure of granisetron in pregnant women.