A New Genetic Risk Score to Predict the Outcome of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated With First-Line Exemestane: Results From a Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 50% of locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients treated with first-line exemestane do not show objective response and currently there are no reliable biomarkers to predict the outcome of patients using this therapy. The constitutive genetic background might be responsible for differences in the outcome of exemestane-treated patients. We designed a prospective study to investigate the role of germ line polymorphisms as biomarkers of survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred two locally advanced or MBC patients treated with first-line exemestane were genotyped for 74 germ line polymorphisms in 39 candidate genes involved in drug activity, hormone balance, DNA replication and repair, and cell signaling pathways. Associations with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were tested with multivariate Cox regression. Bootstrap resampling was used as an internal assessment of results reproducibility. RESULTS: Cytochrome P450 19A1-rs10046TC/CC, solute carrier organic anion transporter 1B1-rs4149056TT, adenosine triphosphate binding cassette subfamily G member 2-rs2046134GG, fibroblast growth factor receptor-4-rs351855TT, and X-ray repair cross complementing 3-rs861539TT were significantly associated with PFS and then combined into a risk score (0-1, 2, 3, or 4-6 risk points). Patients with the highest risk score (4-6 risk points) compared with ones with the lowest score (0-1 risk points) had a median PFS of 10 months versus 26.3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [AdjHR], 3.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.18-4.48]; P < .001) and a median OS of 38.9 months versus 63.0 months (AdjHR, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.22-4.79], P = .012), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study we defined a score including 5 polymorphisms to stratify patients for PFS and OS. This score, if validated, might be translated to personalize locally advanced or MBC patient treatment and management.

Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil before concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy: a phase II feasibility study.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CHT-RT) compared with the same CHT-RT regimen alone in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We treated 24 patients (20 men and 4 women) who had Stage III-IVM0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, nasopharynx, or hypopharynx. The median patient age was 59 years (range, 41-73 years). The stage distribution was as follows: Stage II, 1 patient; Stage III, 6 patients; and Stage IV, 17; 18 patients had a performance status of 0 and 6 had a performance status of 1. None had undergone previous CHT or RT. Group 1 underwent three cycles of CHT (carboplatin area under the curve 1.5 on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) starting on Days 1, 22, and 43 during RT (one daily fraction, 66-70 Gy within 33-35 fractions). Group 2 underwent three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) followed by the same CHT-RT regimen. RESULTS: After the first 16 patients, 8 in Group 1 and 8 in Group 2, the concomitant CHT-RT schedule was modified. The limiting toxicity observed during concomitant CHT-RT was similar in Groups 1 and 2, independent of neoadjuvant TPF administration. An excess of G3-G4 mucositis and other relevant toxicity that did not allowing completion of CHT-RT without interruption occurred in 44% of the patients. A reduction of at least one cycle of concurrent CHT was required in 31% of patients. On the basis of these data, the next 8 patients (Group 3) received three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles only of CHT (cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) (PF) during Weeks 1 and 6 of the planned 7 weeks of RT. In Group 3, 25% of the patients developed World Health Organization G3-G4 mucositis. No World Health Organization hematologic G3-G4 toxicity was seen. RT interruption was required for 2 patients (25%). In 1 patient (12%), one cycle of CHT was omitted. During neoadjuvant TPF (Groups 2 and 3), the principal toxicities were G3-G4 neutropenia (37.5%) and G2 mucositis (44%). At the end of therapy, the CR rate was 62.5% for CHT-RT alone (Group 1) and 80% for neoadjuvant TPF followed by CHT-RT (Groups 2 and 3). CONCLUSION: Three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT are feasible without limiting toxicity. Three cycles of TPF were well tolerated and did not compromise subsequent concomitant CHT-RT. A randomized multicenter Phase III study has been started with the aim of comparing two cycles of PF during RT as standard treatment vs. the experimental arm with three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT.

The role of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: UGT1A1*28 polymorphism has been associated with decreased glucuronidation of SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. This could increase toxicity with this agent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 250 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were treated with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism was investigated with respect to the distribution of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, objective response rate, and survival. Pharmacokinetics was investigated in a subgroup of patients (71 of 250) who had been analyzed with respect to toxicity and efficacy. RESULTS: UGT1A1*28 polymorphism was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 8.63; 95% CI, 1.31 to 56.55), which was only relevant for the first cycle, and was not seen throughout the whole treatment period for patients with both variant alleles TA7/TA7 compared with wild-type TA6/TA6. The response rate was also higher in TA7/TA7 patients (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86) compared with TA6/TA6. A nonsignificant survival advantage was observed for TA7/TA7 when compared with TA6/TA6 patients (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.44). Higher response rates were explained by a different pharmacokinetics with higher biliary index [irinotecan area under the curve (AUC)x(SN38 AUC/SN38G AUC)] and lower glucuronidation ratio (SN38G AUC/SN38 AUC) associated with the TA7/TA7 genotype and a higher response rate, indicating that the polymorphism is functionally relevant. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that UGT1A1*28 polymorphism is of some relevance to toxicity; however, it is less important than discussed in previous smaller trials. In particular, the possibility of a dose reduction for irinotecan in patients with a UGT1A1*28 polymorphism is not supported by the result of this analysis.