Dataset Information

Potential role of CMPK1, SLC29A1, and TLE4 polymorphisms in gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: pharmacogenetic study results from the prospective randomized phase II study of eribulin plus gemcitabine versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (KCSG-BR-13-11).

ABSTRACT:

Background

In this study, we evaluated the association between genetic polymorphisms of 23 genes associated with gemcitabine metabolism and the clinical efficacy of gemcitabine in breast cancer patients.

Patients and methods

This prospective, pharmacogenetic study was conducted in cooperation with a phase II clinical trial. A total of 103 genetic polymorphisms of the 23 genes involved in gemcitabine transport and metabolism were selected for genotyping. The associations of genetic polymorphisms with overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and 6-month PFS were analyzed.

Results

A total of 91 breast cancer patients were enrolled in this study. In terms of 6-month PFS, rs1044457 in CMPK1 was the most significant genetic polymorphism [55.9% for CT and TT and 78.9% for CC, P < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR): 4.444, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.905-10.363]. For the rs693955 in SLC29A1, the median duration of PFS was 5.4 months for AA and 10.5 months for CA and CC (P = 0.002, HR: 3.704, 95% CI: 1.615-8.497). For the rs2807312 in TLE4, the median duration of PFS was 5.7 months for TT and 10.4 months for CT and CC (P = 0.005, HR: 4.948, 95% CI: 1.612-15.190). In survival analysis with a multi-gene model, the TT genotype of rs2807312 had the worst PFS regardless of other genetic polymorphisms, whereas the CA genotype of rs693955 or the CT genotype of rs2807312 without the AA genotype of rs693955 had the best PFS compared with those of other genetic groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Genetic polymorphisms of rs1044457 in CMPK1, rs693955 in SLC29A1, and rs2807312 in TLE4 were significantly associated with the 6-month PFS rate and/or the duration of PFS. Further studies with a larger sample size and expression study would be helpful to validate the association of genetic polymorphisms and clinical efficacy of gemcitabine.

SUBMITTER: Cho EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate.ResultsA total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days.ConclusionsIn patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is mostly diagnosed in an advanced stage and treated with systemic therapy with palliative intent. Nowadays, the doublet chemotherapy of Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is one of the most frequently used regimens worldwide, but is not ubiquitarily available or reimbursed. Therefore, we compared the clinical efficacy of Gem-Nab to a historical control of patients treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Gem-Ox) at our tertiary cancer center, which was the standard treatment prior to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX.MethodsThis single-center retrospective real world study includes 121 patients diagnosed with locally advanced or primary metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemotherapy doublet, with either Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox in palliative first-line. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were made with log-rank tests. Gem-Ox was considered as standard first line therapy at our institution for patients who were deemed fit for doublet chemotherapy between the years 2006 to 2012. These patients were compared to a cohort of patients treated with the new standard first-line therapy of Gem-Nab between 2013 and 2020.ResultsA total of 554 patients with pancreatic cancer of all stages were screened, and 73 patients treated with Gem-Nab and 48 patients treated with Gem-Ox in the palliative first-line setting were identified and included in this analysis. Patients receiving Gem-Ox had a statistically significantly better performance score (ECOG PS) when compared to the Gem-Nab group (Odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, p = 0.005), more often suffered from locally advanced than metastatic disease (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.27-7.91, p = 0.019) and were younger in age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, p = 0.013). Median overall survival (OS) of the whole study cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5-11.6). No statistically significant difference in OS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median OS: 8.9 months (95% CI 6.4-13.5) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 9.5-13.87, p = 0.794, HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.91)). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in the entire cohort (95% CI 4.9-8.4). No statistically significant difference in PFS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median PFS: 5.8 months (95% CI 4.3-8.2) versus 7.9 months (95% CI 5.4-9.5) p = 0.536, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.67). Zero-truncated negative binomial regressions on OS and PFS adjusting for gender, age, performance status (ECOG PS), and CA19-9 levels yielded no significant difference between Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox.ConclusionFrom our analysis, we could evidence no difference in outcome parameters in this retrospective analysis despite the worse prognostic pattern for GemOX. Therefore, we suggest Gem-Ox as potential first line treatment option for inoperable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially if Gem-Nab is not available.