RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Genetic polymorphisms of molecules are known to cause individual differences in the therapeutic efficacy of anticancer drugs. However, to date, germline mutations (but not somatic mutations) for anticancer drugs have not been adequately studied. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between germline polymorphisms of gemcitabine metabolic and transporter genes with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) response (decrease ≥50% from the pretreatment level at 8 weeks) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who receive gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who were receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel combination chemotherapy. Thirteen polymorphisms that may be involved in gemcitabine responsiveness were genotyped, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association of these genotypes with CA 19-9 response and OS. The significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: In total, 180 patients from 11 hospitals in Japan were registered, and 159 patients whose CA 19-9 response could be assessed were included in the final analysis. Patients who had a CA 19-9 response had significantly longer OS (372 vs. 241 days; p = .007). RRM1 2464A>G and RRM2 175T>G polymorphisms suggested a weak association with CA 19-9 response and OS, but it was not statistically significant. COX-2 -765G>C polymorphism did not significantly correlate with CA 19-9 response but was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio, 2.031; p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic polymorphisms from the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine did not indicate a significant association with efficacy, but COX-2 polymorphisms involved in tumor cell proliferation might affect OS.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30-90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. RESULTS: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26-84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51 and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5) + ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.