Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Loss of SLCO1B3 drives taxane resistance in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Both taxanes, docetaxel and cabazitaxel, are effective treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, resistance to taxanes is common. Our objective was to investigate mechanisms of taxane resistance in prostate cancer. METHODS: Two docetaxel-resistant patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) of CRPC were established (PC339-DOC and PC346C-DOC) in male athymic nude mice by frequent intraperitoneal administrations of docetaxel. Next-generation sequencing was performed on PDX tissue pre- and post-docetaxel resistance and gene expression profiles were compared. [(14)C]-docetaxel and [(14)C]-cabazitaxel uptake assays in vitro and cytotoxicity assays were performed to validate direct involvement of transporter genes in taxane sensitivity. RESULTS: Organic anion-transporting polypeptide (SLCO1B3), an influx transporter of docetaxel, was significantly downregulated in PC346C-DOC tumours. In accordance with this finding, intratumoural concentrations of docetaxel and cabazitaxel were significantly decreased in PC346C-DOC as compared with levels in chemotherapy-naive PC346C tumours. In addition, silencing of SLCO1B3 in chemo-naive PC346C resulted in a two-fold decrease in intracellular concentrations of both taxanes. Overexpression of SLCO1B3 showed higher sensitivity to docetaxel and cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The SLCO1B3 determines intracellular concentrations of docetaxel and cabazitaxel and consequently influences taxane efficacy. Loss of the drug transporter SLCO1B3 may drive taxane resistance in prostate cancer.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: time to prioritize patient safety.

Tweetable abstract Pretreatment UGT1A1 genotyping and a 70% irinotecan dose intensity in poor metabolizers is safe, feasible, cost-effective and essential for safe irinotecan treatment in cancer patients. It is time to update guidelines to swiftly enable the implementation of UGT1A1 genotype-guided irinotecan dosing in routine oncology care.

Effects of pharmacogenetic variants on vemurafenib-related toxicities in patients with melanoma.

Aim: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vemurafenib are characterized by a wide interpatient variability. Since multiple polymorphic enzymes and drug transporters are involved in vemurafenib pharmacokinetics, we studied associations of polymorphisms on vemurafenib-associated toxicities. Patients & methods: Prospectively collected samples of 97 melanoma patients treated with vemurafenib alone (n = 62) or in combination with cobimetinib (n = 35) were genotyped for ABCB1 (3435C>T), ABCG2 (421C>A, 34G>A) and CYP3A4 (*22, 15389C>T) polymorphisms. Associations between these variants and the incidence of toxicities were studied. Results:CYP3A4*22 was significantly associated with increased risk for grade ≥3 nausea, grade 1-4 hyperbilirubinemia, and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. ABCB1 3435C>T was a predictor for grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusion: Genetic variants in CYP3A4 and ABCB1 are associated with vemurafenib-associated toxicities.

Polymorphisms in SLCO1B1 and UGT1A1 are associated with sorafenib-induced toxicity.

AIM: Sorafenib-treated patients display a substantial variation in the incidence of toxicity. We aimed to investigate the association of genetic polymorphisms with observed toxicity on sorafenib. PATIENTS & METHODS: We genotyped 114 patients that were treated with sorafenib at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, for SLCO1B1, SLCO1B3, ABCC2, ABCG2, UGT1A1 and UGT1A9. RESULTS: The UGT1A1 (rs8175347) polymorphism was associated with hyperbilirubinemia and treatment interruption. Polymorphisms in SLCO1B1 (rs2306283, rs4149056) were associated with diarrhea and thrombocytopenia, respectively. None of the investigated polymorphisms was associated with overall or progression-free survival in hepatocellular cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Polymorphisms in SLCO1B1 and UGT1A1 are associated with several different sorafenib side effects.

Human OCT2 variant c.808G>T confers protection effect against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity.

AIM: Assuming that genetic variants of the SLC22A2 and SLC31A1 transporter affect patients' susceptibility to cisplatin-induced ototoxicity, we compared the distribution of 11 SLC22A2 variants and the SLC31A1 variant rs10981694 between patients with and without cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. PATIENTS & METHODS: Genotyping was performed in 64 pediatric patients and significant findings were re-evaluated in 66 adults. RESULTS: The SLC22A2 polymorphism rs316019 (c.808G>T; Ser270Ala) was significantly associated with protection from cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in the pediatric (p = 0.022) and the adult cohort (p = 0.048; both: Fisher's exact test). This result was confirmed by multiple logistic regression analysis accounting for age which was identified as a relevant factor for ototoxicity as well (rs316019: OR [G/T vs G/G] = 0.12, p = 0.009; age: OR [per year]: 0.84, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These results identified rs316019 as potential pharmacogenomic marker for cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and point to a critical role of SLC22A2 for cisplatin transport in humans and its contribution to the organ specific side effects of this drug. Original submitted 17 September 2014; Revision submitted 19 December 2014.

Danusertib, an aurora kinase inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Drugs that interfere with the normal progression of mitosis belong to the most successful cytotoxic agents currently used for anticancer treatment. Aurora kinases are serine/threonine kinases that function as key regulators of mitosis and are frequently overexpressed in human cancers. The use of several small molecule aurora kinase inhibitors as potential anticancer therapeutic is being investigated. Danusertib (formerly PHA-739358) is a small ATP competitive molecule that inhibits aurora A, B and C kinases. Interestingly, danusertib also inhibits several receptor tyrosine kinases such as Abl, Ret, FGFR-1 and TrkA. These tyrosine kinases are involved in the pathogenesis of a variety of malignancies and the observed multi-target inhibition may increase the antitumor activity resulting in extending the indication. Danusertib was one of the first aurora kinase inhibitors to enter the clinic and has been studied in Phase I and II trials. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an updated summary of preclinical and clinical experience with danusertib up to July 2011. EXPERT OPINION: Future studies with danusertib should focus on the possibility of combining this agent with other targeted anticancer agents, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. As a single agent, danusertib may show more promise in the treatment of leukemias than in solid tumors.