ABSTRACT
The susceptibility to glioma is not well understood. It has been suggested that the X-ray cross complementing group 3 (XRCC3) gene influences the capacity to repair DNA damage, leading to increased glioma susceptibility. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between XRCC3 mutations and glioma risk. Genotypes were assessed in 389 Chinese glioma patients and 358 healthy controls. XRCC3 Thr241Met (rs861539) and 2 additional polymorphisms, rs3212112 (c.774+19T>G) and rs1799796 (c.562-14A>G), were directly sequenced. The frequency of the rs861539 T allele was significantly lower in the glioma group than in healthy controls [11.1 vs 17.7%, odds ratio = 0.62 (0.48-0.80), P < 0.001]; the frequencies of the CT or CT+TT genotypes differed between groups (18.5 vs 31%, 20.3 vs 33.2%, respectively). The frequency of the rs3212112 G allele was significantly higher in the glioma group than in healthy controls [15.8 vs 5.3%, odds ratio = 2.94 (2.07-4.17), P < 0.001]. The frequencies of the GT or TG+GG genotypes differed between groups (25.4 vs 7.8%, 28.5 vs 9.2%, respectively). This study demonstrates that the rs861539 and rs3212112 polymorphisms in the XRCC3 gene may influence the risk of glioma development in Chinese populations.
Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms/genetics , DNA Repair , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Glioma/genetics , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , Adult , Alleles , Asian People , Brain Neoplasms/ethnology , Brain Neoplasms/pathology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Gene Expression , Gene Frequency , Genotype , Glioma/ethnology , Glioma/pathology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Risk Factors , Sequence Analysis, DNAABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This randomized phase II study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel with S-1 (PS) vs. S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Eighty-two (82) patients were 1:1 randomly assigned to oral S-1 (daily for 2 weeks, every 4 weeks' cycle) or S-1 (daily for 2 weeks, every 4 weeks' cycle) plus paclitaxel (on day 1, 8 and 15 of a 4 weeks' cycle). S-1 was orally administered with a fixed quantity according to body surface area (BSA), while paclitaxel was given 60 mg/m(2) i.v. daily through an implanted catheter. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall responsible rates and safety. RESULTS: The median OS with PS versus S-1 monotherapy was 14.0 versus 11.0 months (P = 0.02), survival at 12 months was 61.0 % in the PS group and 46.3 % in the S-1 group. Median PFS was also significantly longer in the PS group (6.0 months) than in the S-1 group (4.0 months). The overall response rate was determined in 82 evaluable patients, and was significantly higher (P = 0.04) with PS (19 patients, 46.3 %) than with S-1 monotherapy (10 patients, 24.4 %). PS was well tolerated with no treatment-related deaths, all were grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities, including anorexia, nausea, and diarrhea developed in less than 10 % of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy of paclitaxel with S-1 is well tolerated and active in AGC patients. Further investigation with comparative trials is needed for confirmation.