Comparison of FDA Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations and Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines.

PURPOSE: Healthcare professionals need a clear understanding of information about gene-drug interactions in order to make optimal use of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. In this report, we compare PGx information in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations with information presented in Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. SUMMARY: Information from CPIC guidelines and the FDA Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations do not have a high level of concordance. Many drugs mentioned in CPIC guidelines are not listed in the FDA table and vice versa, and the same gene-drug association and dosing recommendation was reported for only 5 of the 126 drugs included in either source. Furthermore, classification of drugs in specific sections of the FDA table does not correlate well with CPIC-assigned or provisionally assigned clinical actionability levels. The Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB) clinical annotation levels are generally high for drugs mentioned in CPIC guidelines. PharmGKB clinical annotation levels are often unassigned or are lower level for drugs listed on the FDA table but not in CPIC guidelines. These differences may be due in part to FDA having access to PGx information that is unavailable in published literature and/or because PGx classifications are based on criteria other than clinical actionability. CONCLUSION: There are important differences between the PGx information presented in the FDA Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations and in CPIC guidelines. FDA and CPIC have different perspectives when evaluating PGx associations and use different approaches and information resources when considering clinical validity related to specific medicines. Understanding how information sources developed by each group differ and can be used together to form a holistic view of PGx may be helpful in increasing adoption of these information sources in practice.

Pharmacogenetic study in gastric cancer patients treated with adjuvant fluorouracil/leucovorin or epirubicin/cisplatin/fluorouracil before and after chemoradiation on CALGB 80101 (Alliance).

There is a lack of pharmacogenetic predictors of outcome in gastric cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess previously identified candidate genes associated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, or epirubicin toxicity or response in a cohort of resected gastric cancer patients treated on CALGB (Alliance) 80101. Gastric or gastroesophageal cancer patients randomized to adjuvant 5-FU/leucovorin or epirubicin/cisplatin/5-FU before and after 5-FU chemoradiation were genotyped for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in GSTP1 (rs1695), ERCC1 (rs11615 and rs3212986), XRCC1 (rs25487), UGT2B7 (rs7439366) and the 28 base-pair tandem repeats in TYMS (rs34743033). Logistic regression and log rank tests were used to assess the association between each SNP and incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia and leukopenia, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. Toxicity endpoint analyses were adjusted for the treatment arm, while OS and PFS were also adjusted for performance status, sex, age, lymph node involvement, and primary tumor site and size. Of 281 subjects with successful genotyping results and available clinical (toxicity and efficacy) data, 166 self-reported non-Hispanic White patients were included in the final analysis. There was a lack of evidence of an association among any SNPs tested with grade 3/4 neutropenia and leukopenia or OS and PFS. Age, lymph node involvement, and primary tumor size were significantly associated with OS and PFS. This study failed to confirm results of previous gastric cancer pharmacogenetic studies.

Opioid Risk Screening in an Oncology Palliative Medicine Clinic.

PURPOSE: Little information exists on factors that predict opioid misuse in oncology. We adopted the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF) and toxicology testing to assess for opioid misuse risk. The primary objective was to (1) identify characteristics associated with a high-risk SOAPP-SF score and noncompliant toxicology test, and (2) determine SOAPP-SF utility to predict noncompliant toxicology tests. METHODS: From July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, new patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), SOAPP-SF, and narcotic use agreement. Toxicology test results were collected at subsequent visits. RESULTS: Of 223 distinct patients, 96% completed SOAPP-SF. Mean age was 61 ± 12.7 years, 58% were female, 68% were White, and 28% were Black. Eighty-three eligible patients (38%) completed toxicology testing. Younger age, male sex, and increased ESAS depression scores were associated with high-risk SOAPP-SF scores. Smoking habit was associated with an aberrant test. An SOAPP-SF score ≥ 3 predicted a noncompliant toxicology test. CONCLUSION: Male sex, young age, and higher ESAS depression score were associated with a high SOAPP-SF score. Smoking habit was associated with an aberrant test. An SOAPP-SF of ≥ 3 (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.64), not ≥ 4, was predictive of an aberrant test; however, performance characteristics were decreased from those published by Inflexxion, for ≥ 4 (sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.67). The specificity warrants caution in falsely labeling patients. The SOAPP-SF may aid in meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations to screen oncology patients for opioid misuse.

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of ≥2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).

Acupuncture for Cancer Pain and Symptom Management in a Palliative Medicine Clinic.

OBJECTIVE:: Studies suggest acupuncture improves cancer-related symptoms; however, it is unclear whether patient characteristics predict pain response. This study determined acupuncture's effect on cancer-related pain and identified variables associated with pain response. METHODS:: A retrospective chart review included adult patients with cancer referred to palliative medicine and received acupuncture for pain management. Paired t tests compared differences in pain scores from pre- to postacupuncture. Clinically meaningful pain improvement was defined as ≥2-point reduction in pain score. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and pain improvement. RESULTS:: One hundred seventy acupuncture treatments from 68 individual patients were studied. Significant reductions in mean pain scores were observed after the first treatment (-1.9 ± 1.8; P < .001) and across all treatments (-1.7 ± 1.9; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated clinically meaningful pain improvement with higher baseline pain scores (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-2.22; P < .001) and stage III/IV disease (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.11-9.40; P < .001). There were significant improvements in anxiety, depression, drowsiness, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, and well-being after the first treatment and across all treatments ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:: Acupuncture improved cancer-related pain and other symptoms. Those with higher baseline pain scores and advanced disease were more likely to achieve significant pain reduction. Improved depression and fatigue were closely related to pain reduction. Further studies are needed to confirm pain response variables, establish durability, and develop a personalized approach to acupuncture.