Genotype-based selection of treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (SETICC): a pharmacogenetic-based randomized phase II trial

Genotype-based chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal tumors: focus on oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines

This review aimed to summarize the pharmacogenetic studies of the most commonly used drugs in the chemotherapy of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors: oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines. So far, it has not been possible to develop an effective genotype-based approach for oxaliplatin. More and more evidence is emerging in favor of the fact that the choice of a dose of fluorouracil based on pharmacogenetic testing according to DPYD*2A, can be not only effective but also cost-effective. Additional, well-planned trials of the UGT1A1 genotype-based approach to irinotecan therapy are predicted to reduce adverse drug events in people with the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotypes and improve treatment efficacy in the rest of the patients, which might be cost-effective.

Genotype-based chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal tumors: focus on oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines

This review aimed to summarize the pharmacogenetic studies of the most commonly used drugs in the chemotherapy of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors: oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines. So far, it has not been possible to develop an effective genotype-based approach for oxaliplatin. More and more evidence is emerging in favor of the fact that the choice of a dose of fluorouracil based on pharmacogenetic testing according to DPYD*2A, can be not only effective but also cost-effective. Additional, well-planned trials of the UGT1A1 genotype-based approach to irinotecan therapy are predicted to reduce adverse drug events in people with the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotypes and improve treatment efficacy in the rest of the patients, which might be cost-effective.

Upfront primary tumour resection and survival in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer according to primary tumour location and RAS status: Pooled analysis of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD)

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective studies and meta-analyses suggest that upfront primary tumour resection (UPTR) confers a survival benefit in patients with asymptomatic unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) undergoing chemotherapy, however a consensus of its role in routine clinical practice in the current era of targeted therapies is lacking. This retrospective study aimed to analyse the survival benefit of UPTR in terms of tumour location and mutational status, in patients with synchronous mCRC receiving chemotherapy and targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Survival was analysed in a pooled cohort of synchronous mCRC patients treated with a first-line anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR inhibitor in seven trials of the Spanish TTD group, according to UPTR, tumour-sidedness and mutational profiling.

RESULTS

Of 1334 eligible patients, 642 (48%) had undergone UPTR. UPTR was associated with significantly longer overall survival (OS; 25.0 vs 20.3 months; HR 1.30, 95%CI 1.15-1.48; p < 0.0001). UPTR was associated with significant OS benefit in both left-sided (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.13-1.69; p = 0.002) and right-sided (HR 1.39, 95%CI 1.00-1.94; p = 0.049) tumours, RASwt (HR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05-1.60; p = 0.016) and BRAFwt (HR 1.49, 95%CI 1.21-1.84; p = 0.0002) tumours, and treatment with anti-EGFRs (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.13-1.92; p = 0.004) and anti-VEGFs (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.44; p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis identified number of metastatic sites, RAS status, primary tumour location and UPTR as independent prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSION

Considering the selection bias inherent to this study, our results support UPTR before first-line anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF targeted therapy in right and left-sided asymptomatic unresectable synchronous mCRC patients. RAS/BRAF mutational status may also influence UPTR function.

First-Line Biological Agents Plus Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologicals, in combination with chemotherapy, are recommended as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, evidence guiding the appropriate management of older patients with mCRC is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes in older versus younger patients with mCRC who received first-line biological therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used pooled data from five trials undertaken by the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours. All were studies of adults with advanced CRC who received first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, cetuximab or panitumumab, stratified by age (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years). Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 999 patients from five studies were included in the analysis: 480 (48%) were aged ≥ 65 years, and 519 (52%) were aged < 65 years. Median PFS did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years (9.9 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.17). Median OS was significantly shorter in older than in younger patients (21.3 vs. 25.0 months; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41). There was no significant difference between older and younger patients in ORR (59 vs. 62%). Patients aged ≥ 65 years experienced significantly more treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (61.67%) than did patients aged < 65 years (45.86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Biologicals plus chemotherapy is an effective first-line treatment option for selected patients aged ≥ 65 years with mCRC and has a manageable safety profile and efficacy comparable to that observed in younger patients.

Neurological safety of oxaliplatin in patients with uncommon variants in Charcot-Marie-tooth disease genes

Oxaliplatin therapy can be complicated by chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Other neurotoxic chemotherapies have been linked to single nucleotide variants (SNV) in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) genes. Whether oxaliplatin carries increased risks of CIPN due to SNV in CMT-associated genes is unknown. 353 patients receiving oxaliplatin in NCCTG N08CB were serially evaluated for CIPN using a validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, the CIPN20 questionnaire (sensory scale). 49 canonical CMT-associated genes were analyzed for rare and common SNV by nextgen sequencing. The 157 patients with the highest and lowest susceptibility to CIPN (cases and controls) harbored 270 non-synonymous SNV in CMT-associated genes (coding regions). 143 of these were rare, occurring only once ("singletons"). CIPN cases had 0.84 singletons per patient compared with 0.98 in controls. An imbalance in favor of cases was noted only in few genes including PRX, which was previously highlighted as a candidate CIPN gene in patients receiving paclitaxel. However, the imbalance was only modest (5 singleton SNV in cases and 2 in controls). Therefore, while singleton SNV were common, they did overall not portend an increased risk of CIPN. Furthermore, testing CMT-associated genes using recurrent non-synonymous SNV did not reveal any significant association with CIPN. Genetic analysis of patients from N08CB provides clinical guidance that oxaliplatin chemotherapy decisions should not be altered by the majority of SNV that may be encountered in CMT-associated genes when common genetic tests are performed, such as exome or genome sequencing. Oxaliplatin's CIPN risk appears unrelated to CMT-associated genes.

The use of pharmacogenetics to increase the safety of colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidines

Fluoropyrimidines (FP) are given in the combination treatment of the advanced disease or as monotherapy in the neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancerand other solid tumors including breast, head and neck and gastric cancer. FP present a narrow therapeutic index with 10 to 26% of patients experiencing acute severe or life-threatening toxicity. With the high number of patients receiving FP-based therapies, and the significant effects of toxicities on their quality of life, the prevention of FP-related adverse events is of major clinical interest. Host genetic variants in the rate limiting enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) gene are related to the occurrence of extremely severe, early onset toxicity in FP treated patients. The pre-treatment diagnostic test of 4 DPYD genetic polymorphisms is suggested by the currently available pharmacogenetic guidelines. Several prospective implementation projects are ongoing to support the introduction of up-front genotyping of the patients in clinical practice. Multiple pharmacogenetic studies tried to assess the predictive role of other polymorphisms in genes involved in the FP pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamic pathways, TYMS and MTHFR, but no additional clinically validated genetic markers of toxicity are available to date. The development of next-generation sequencing platforms opens new possibilities to highlight previously unreported genetic markers. Moreover, the investigation of the genetic variation in the patients immunological system, a pivotal target in cancer treatment, could bring notable advances in the field. This review will describe the most recent literature on the use of pharmacogenetics to increase the safety of a treatment based on FP administration in colorectal cancer patients.

Host genetic profiling to increase drug safety in colorectal cancer from discovery to implementation

Adverse events affect the pharmacological treatment of approximately 90% of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients at any stage of the disease. Chemotherapy including fluoropyrimidines, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin is the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment of CRC. The introduction of novel targeted agents, as anti-EGFR (i.e. cetuximab, panitumumab) and antiangiogenic (i.e. bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, regorafenib, and ramucirumab) molecules, into the oncologist's toolbox has led to significant improvements in the life expectancy of advanced CRC patients, but with a substantial increase in toxicity burden. In this respect, pharmacogenomics has largely been applied to the personalization of CRC chemotherapy, focusing mainly on the study of inhered polymorphisms in genes encoding phase I and II enzymes, ATP-binding cassette (ABC)/solute carrier (SLC) membrane transporters, proteins involved in DNA repair, folate pathway and immune response. These research efforts have led to the identification of some validated genetic markers of chemotherapy toxicity, for fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan. No validated genetic determinants of oxaliplatin-specific toxicity, as peripheral neuropathy, has thus far been established. The contribution of host genetic markers in predicting the toxicity associated with novel targeted agents' administration is still controversial due to the heterogeneity of published data. Pharmacogenomics guidelines have been published by some international scientific consortia such as the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) strongly suggesting a pre-treatment dose adjustment of irinotecan based on UGT1A1*28 genotype and of fluoropyrimidines based on some DPYD genetic variants, to increase treatment safety. However, these recommendations are still poorly applied at the patient's bedside. Several ongoing projects in the U.S. and Europe are currently evaluating how pharmacogenomics can be implemented successfully in daily clinical practice. The majority of drug-related adverse events are still unexplained, and a great deal of ongoing research is aimed at improving knowledge of the role of pharmacogenomics in increasing treatment safety. In this review, the issue of pre-treatment identification of CRC patients at risk of toxicity via the analysis of patients' genetic profiles is addressed. Available pharmacogenomics guidelines with ongoing efforts to implement them in clinical practice and new exploratory markers for clinical validation are described.