Pharmacogenetics of anti-cancer drugs: State of the art and implementation - recommendations of the French National Network of Pharmacogenetics

Irinotecan dosing and pharmacogenomics: a comprehensive exploration based on UGT1A1 variants and emerging insights

Irinotecan is a critical anticancer drug used to treat metastatic colorectal cancer and advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by obstructing topoisomerase 1; however, it can cause minor-to-severe and life-threatening adverse effects. UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 (UGT1A1) polymorphisms increase the risk of irinotecan-induced neutropenia and diarrhea. Hence, screening for UGT1A1 polymorphisms before irinotecan-based chemotherapy is recommended to minimize toxicity, whereas liposomes offer the potential to deliver irinotecan with fewer side effects in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This review presents a comprehensive overview of the effects of genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan on UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6 variants, incorporating pharmacogenomic research, optimal regimens for metastatic colorectal and pancreatic cancer treatment using irinotecan, guidelines for toxicity reduction, and an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotype testing.

Recurrent cardiotoxicity in a fluoropyrimidine treated cancer patient - case report and practical recommendations

Fluoropyrimidines remain some of the most used chemotherapeutics, despite the appearance in the therapeutic arsenal of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Fluropyrimidines related cardiotoxicity is an undesirable adverse event and affects almost 20% of patients. The mechanisms of fluoropyrimidine toxicity are closely related to deficient allelic variants of DPYD, but considering the low penetrance and interindividual variability, not all adverse reactions are explained by their presence. In this case, we report a patient with recurrent fluoropyrimidine toxicity without a deficient allelic variant and how this case was managed by the oncologist and cardiologist, considering the need to use fluoropyrimidine in the treatment.

PAnno: A pharmacogenomics annotation tool for clinical genomic testing

Introduction: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have been widely used in clinical genomic testing for drug response phenotypes. However, the inherent limitations of short reads make accurate inference of diplotypes still challenging, which may reduce the effectiveness of genotype-guided drug therapy. Methods: An automated Pharmacogenomics Annotation tool (PAnno) was implemented, which reports prescribing recommendations and phenotypes by parsing the germline variant call format (VCF) file from NGS and the population to which the individual belongs. Results: A ranking model dedicated to inferring diplotypes, developed based on the allele (haplotype) definition and population allele frequency, was introduced in PAnno. The predictive performance was validated in comparison with four similar tools using the consensus diplotype data of the Genetic Testing Reference Materials Coordination Program (GeT-RM) as ground truth. An annotation method was proposed to summarize prescribing recommendations and classify drugs into avoid use, use with caution, and routine use, following the recommendations of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), etc. It further predicts phenotypes of specific drugs in terms of toxicity, dosage, efficacy, and metabolism by integrating the high-confidence clinical annotations in the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase (PharmGKB). PAnno is available at https://github.com/PreMedKB/PAnno. Discussion: PAnno provides an end-to-end clinical pharmacogenomics decision support solution by resolving, annotating, and reporting germline variants.

Genotyping of UGT1A1*80 as an Alternative to UGT1A1*28 Genotyping in Spain

Background: The variant rs34983651 (UGT1A1*28) and its genotyping are used to prevent irinotecan-induced toxicity. Several variants are in close linkage disequilibrium. Our objective was to evaluate the potential correlation of genotyping UGT1A1*80 instead of UGT1A1*28 in different populations. Methods: We studied SNPs in linkage disequilibrium with UGT1A1*28 in several populations and selected rs887829 to develop an inexpensive and rapid genotyping method and compare it with the one we currently use for UGT1A1*28 genotyping. Samples from cancer patients (n = 701) already tested using PCR and electrophoresis prior to treatment with irinotecan for rs34983651 (UGT1A1*28) in a Spanish hospital were genotyped for rs887829 (UGT1A1*80) using real-time PCR with a TaqMan probe. Results: We observed a complete match for both genotypes, except in one sample. This method was 100% efficient in correctly genotyping *28/*28 patients, 99.68% efficient for *1/*28, and 100% efficient for *1/*1. Linkage disequilibrium between populations showed the Iberian population to be the most suitable for the clinical use of UGT1A1*80. This method is less expensive and the time to decision is shorter. Conclusion: Genotyping of rs887829 using the proposed method may be used to substitute genotyping of rs34983651 as a pharmacogenetics test in cancer patients prior to starting irinotecan-based treatments, mainly in the Iberian population. In addition, it is less expensive than other conventional methods and easy to implement, with a shorter time to decision than UGT1A1*28.

The Value of Pharmacogenetics to Reduce Drug-Related Toxicity in Cancer Patients

Many anticancer drugs cause adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that negatively impact safety and reduce quality of life. The typical narrow therapeutic range and exposure-response relationships described for anticancer drugs make precision dosing critical to ensure safe and effective drug exposure. Germline mutations in pharmacogenes contribute to inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs. Patients carrying reduced-activity or loss-of-function alleles are at increased risk for ADRs. Pretreatment genotyping offers a proactive approach to identify these high-risk patients, administer an individualized dose, and minimize the risk of ADRs. In the field of oncology, the most well-studied gene-drug pairs for which pharmacogenetic dosing recommendations have been published to improve safety are DPYD-fluoropyrimidines, TPMT/NUDT15-thiopurines, and UGT1A1-irinotecan. Despite the presence of these guidelines, the scientific evidence showing the benefits of pharmacogenetic testing (e.g., improved safety and cost-effectiveness) and the development of efficient multi-gene genotyping panels, routine pretreatment testing for these gene-drug pairs has not been implemented widely in the clinic. Important considerations required for widespread clinical implementation include pharmacogenetic education of physicians, availability or allocation of institutional resources to build an efficient clinical infrastructure, international standardization of guidelines, uniform adoption of guidelines by regulatory agencies leading to genotyping requirements in drug labels, and development of cohesive reimbursement policies for pretreatment genotyping. Without clinical implementation, the potential of pharmacogenetics to improve patient safety remains unfulfilled.

Pharmacogenomics in solid cancers and hematologic malignancies: Improving personalized drug prescription

The discovery of molecular alterations involved in oncogenesis is evolving rapidly and has led to the development of new innovative targeted therapies in oncology. High-throughput sequencing techniques help to identify genomic targets and to provide predictive molecular biomarkers of response to guide alternative therapeutic strategies. Besides the emergence of these theranostic markers for the new targeted treatments, pharmacogenetic markers (corresponding to genetic variants existing in the constitutional DNA, i.e., the host genome) can help to optimize the use of chemotherapy. In this review, we present the current clinical applications of constitutional PG and the recent concepts and advances in pharmacogenomics, a rapidly evolving field that focuses on various molecular alterations identified on constitutional or somatic (tumor) genome.

DPYD polymorphisms c.496A>G, c.2194G>A and c.85T>C and risk of severe adverse drug reactions in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine-based protocols

AIMS

Cancer patients with reduced dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity are at increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine (FP)-related adverse events (AE). Guidelines recommend FP dosing adjusted to genotype-predicted DPD activity based on four DPYD variants (rs3918290, rs55886062, rs67376798 and rs56038477). We evaluated the relationship between three further DPYD polymorphisms: c.496A>G (rs2297595), *6 c.2194G>A (rs1801160) and *9A c.85T>C (rs1801265) and the risk of severe AEs.

METHODS

Consecutive FP-treated adult patients were genotyped for "standard" and tested DPYD variants, and for UGT1A1*28 if irinotecan was included, and were monitored for the occurrence of grade ≥3 (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria) vs. grade 0-2 AEs. For each of the tested polymorphisms, variant allele carriers were matched to respective wild type controls (optimal full matching combined with exact matching, in respect to: age, sex, type of cancer, type of FP, DPYD activity score, use of irinotecan/UGT1A1, adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, biological therapy and genotype on the remaining two tested polymorphisms).

RESULTS

Of the 503 included patients (82.3% colorectal cancer), 283 (56.3%) developed grade ≥3 AEs, mostly diarrhoea and neutropenia. Odds of grade ≥3 AEs were higher in c.496A>G variant carriers (n = 127) than in controls (n = 376) [OR = 5.20 (95% CI 1.88-14.3), Bayesian OR = 5.24 (95% CrI 3.06-9.12)]. Odds tended to be higher in c.2194G>A variant carriers (n = 58) than in controls (n = 432) [OR = 1.88 (0.95-3.73), Bayesian OR = 1.90 (1.03-3.56)]. c.85T>C did not appear associated with grade ≥3 AEs (206 variant carriers vs. 284 controls).

CONCLUSION

DPYD c.496A>G and possibly c.2194G>A variants might need to be considered for inclusion in the DPYD genotyping panel.

The Role of Genetic Polymorphisms in High-Dose Methotrexate Toxicity and Response in Hematological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is a mainstay therapeutic agent for the treatment of diverse hematological malignancies, and it plays a significant role in interindividual variability regarding the pharmacokinetics and toxicity. The genetic association of HDMTX has been widely investigated, but the conflicting results have complicated the clinical utility. Therefore, this systematic review aims to determine the role of gene variants within the HDMTX pathway and to fill the gap between knowledge and clinical practice. Methods: Databases including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Clinical Trials.gov were searched from inception to November 2020. We included twelve single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the HDMTX pathway, involving RFC1, SLCO1B1, ABCB1, FPGS, GGH, MTHFR, DHFR, TYMS, and ATIC. Meta-analysis was conducted by using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software 5.3. The odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were analyzed to evaluate the associations between SNPs and clinical outcomes. This study was performed according to the PRISMA guideline. Results: In total, 34 studies with 4102 subjects were identified for the association analysis. Nine SNPs involving MTHFR, RFC1, ABCB1, SLCO1B1, TYMS, FPGS, and ATIC genes were investigated, while none of studies reported the polymorphisms of GGH and DHFR yet. Two SNPs were statistically associated with the increased risk of HDMTX toxicity: MTHFR 677C>T and hepatotoxicity (dominant, OR=1.52, 95% CI=1.03-2.23; recessive, OR=1.68, 95% CI=1.10-2.55; allelic, OR=1.41, 95% CI=1.01-1.97), mucositis (dominant, OR=2.11, 95% CI=1.31-3.41; allelic, OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.28-2.85), and renal toxicity (recessive, OR=3.54, 95% CI=1.81-6.90; allelic, OR=1.89, 95% CI=1.18-3.02); ABCB1 3435C>T and hepatotoxicity (dominant, OR=3.80, 95% CI=1.68-8.61), whereas a tendency toward the decreased risk of HDMTX toxicity was present in three SNPs: TYMS 2R>3R and mucositis (dominant, OR=0.66, 95% CI=0.47-0.94); RFC1 80A>G and hepatotoxicity (recessive, OR=0.35, 95% CI=0.16-0.76); and MTHFR 1298A>C and renal toxicity (allelic, OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.18-0.97). Since the data of prognosis outcomes was substantially lacking, current studies were underpowered to investigate the genetic association. Conclusions: We conclude that genotyping of MTHFR and/or ABCB1 polymorphisms prior to treatment, MTHFR 677C>T particularly, is likely to be potentially useful with the aim of tailoring HDMTX therapy and thus reducing toxicity in patients with hematological malignancies.

Impact of UGT1A1 genotype on the efficacy and safety of irinotecan-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

The phase III AXEPT study showed the noninferiority of modified capecitabine plus irinotecan (mXELIRI) with or without bevacizumab relative to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab as a second‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated the associations between the UGT1A1 genotype linked to adverse events—caused by irinotecan—and the efficacy and safety of mXELIRI and FOLFIRI. The UGT1A1 genotype was prospectively determined and patients were categorized into three groups according to WT (*1/*1), single heterozygous (SH; *28/*1 or *6/*1), and double heterozygous or homozygous (DHH; *28/*28, *6/*6, or *28/*6). Overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival, response rate, and safety were assessed. The UGT1A1 genotype was available in all 650 randomized patients (WT, 309 [47.5%]; SH, 291 [44.8%]; DHH, 50 [7.7%]). The median OS was 15.9, 17.7, and 10.6 months in the WT, SH, and DHH groups, respectively, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12‐2.09; P = .008) for DHH vs WT or SH. The median OS in the mXELIRI and FOLFIRI arms was 18.1 vs 14.3 months (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62‐1.03) in the WT group, 16.3 vs 18.3 months (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.79‐1.36) in the SH group, and 13.0 vs 9.1 months (HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.39‐1.31) in the DHH group, respectively. Modified capecitabine plus irinotecan with or without bevacizumab could be a standard second‐line chemotherapy in terms of efficacy and safety regardless of the UGT1A1 genotype.

Acceptability of Pharmacogenetic Testing among French Psychiatrists, a National Survey

Psychiatric disorder management is based on the prescription of psychotropic drugs. Response to them remains often insufficient and varies from one patient to another. Pharmacogenetics explain part of this variability. Pharmacogenetic testing is likely to optimize the choice of treatment and thus improve patients’ care, even if concerns and limitations persist. This practice of personalized medicine is not very widespread in France. We conducted a national survey to evaluate the acceptability of this tool by psychiatrists and psychiatry residents in France, and to identify factors associated with acceptability and previous use. The analysis included 397 observations. The mean acceptability score was 10.70, on a scale from 4 to 16. Overall acceptability score was considered as low for 3.0% of responders, intermediate for 80.1% and high for 16.9%. After regression, the remaining factors influencing acceptability independently of the others were prescription and training history and theoretical approach. The attitude of our population seems to be rather favorable, however, obvious deficiencies have emerged regarding perceived skills and received training. Concerns about the cost and delays of tests results also emerged. According to our survey, one of the keys to overcoming the barriers encountered in the integration of pharmacogenetics seems to be the improvement of training and the provision of information to practitioners.

Pharmacogenetics Guidelines: Overview and Comparison of the DPWG, CPIC, CPNDS, and RNPGx Guidelines

Many studies have shown that the efficacy and risk of side effects of drug treatment is influenced by genetic variants. Evidence based guidelines are essential for implementing pharmacogenetic knowledge in daily clinical practice to optimize pharmacotherapy of individual patients. A literature search was performed to select committees developing guidelines with recommendations being published in English. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety (CPNDS), and the French National Network (Réseau) of Pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) were selected. Their guidelines were compared with regard to the methodology of development, translation of genotypes to predicted phenotypes, pharmacotherapeutic recommendations and recommendations on genotyping. A detailed overview of all recommendations for gene-drug combinations is given. The committees have similar methodologies of guideline development. However, the objectives differed at the start of their projects, which have led to unique profiles and strengths of their guidelines. DPWG and CPIC have a main focus on pharmacotherapeutic recommendations for a large number of drugs in combination with a patient’s genotype or predicted phenotype. DPWG, CPNDS and RNPGx also recommend on performing genetic testing in daily clinical practice, with RNPGx even describing specific clinical settings or medical conditions for which genotyping is recommended. Discordances exist, however committees also initiated harmonizing projects. The outcome of a consensus project was to rename “extensive metabolizer (EM)” to “normal metabolizer (NM)”. It was decided to translate a CYP2D6 genotype with one nonfunctional allele (activity score 1.0) into the predicted phenotype of intermediate metabolizer (IM). Differences in recommendations are the result of the methodologies used, such as assessment of dose adjustments of tricyclic antidepressants. In some cases, indication or dose specific recommendations are given for example for clopidogrel, codeine, irinotecan. The following drugs have recommendations on genetic testing with the highest level: abacavir (HLA), clopidogrel (CYP2C19), fluoropyrimidines (DPYD), thiopurines (TPMT), irinotecan (UGT1A1), codeine (CYP2D6), and cisplatin (TPMT). The guidelines cover many drugs and genes, genotypes, or predicted phenotypes. Because of this and their unique features, considering the totality of guidelines are of added value. In conclusion, many evidence based pharmacogenetics guidelines with clear recommendations are available for clinical decision making by healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders.

Fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiotoxicity

Cardio-oncology is a discipline based on early screening, monitoring, and treating chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. There are many chemotherapeutics known for their cardiac toxic effects, including fluoropyrimidines. Fluoropyrimidine represents the cornerstone of many types of cancer and each year almost two million cancer patients undergo this treatment. Fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiotoxicity can be manifested in several forms, from angina pectoris to sudden death. This paper is a review of how the cardiotoxicity of fluoropyrimidines is presented, the mechanisms of its occurrence, its diagnosis, and management.

PharmFrag: An Easy and Fast Multiplex Pharmacogenetics Assay to Simultaneously Analyze 9 Genetic Polymorphisms Involved in Response Variability of Anticancer Drugs

Regarding several cytotoxic agents, it was evidenced that genetic polymorphisms in genes encoding enzymes involved in their metabolism are associated with higher risk of toxicity. Genotyping these genes before treatment is a valuable strategy to prevent side effects and to predict individual response to drug therapy. This pharmacogenetic approach is recommended for chemotherapies such as thiopurines (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, thioguanine), irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil). In this study, we aimed at developing and validating a fast, cost-effective, and easily implementable multiplex genotyping method suitable for analyzing a panel of nine variants involved in the pharmacogenetics of widely prescribed anticancer drugs. We designed a multiplex-specific PCR assay where fragments were labeled by two different fluorescent dye markers (HEX/FAM) identifiable by fragment analysis. These two labels were used to discriminate bi-allelic variants, while the size of the fragment allowed the identification of a particular polymorphism location. Variants of interest were TPMT (rs1800462, rs1142345, rs1800460), NUDT15 (rs116855232), DPYD (rs55886062, rs3918290, rs67376798, rs75017182), and UGT1A1 (rs8175347). The assay was repeatable, and genotypes could be determined when DNA sample amounts ranged from 25 to 100 ng. Primers and dye remained stable in a ready-to-use mixture solution after five freeze–thaw cycles. Accuracy was evidenced by the consistency of 187 genotyping results obtained with our multiplex assay and a reference method. The developed method is fast and cost-effective in simultaneously identifying nine variants involved in the pharmacological response of anticancer drugs. This assay can be easily implemented in laboratories for widespread access to pharmacogenetics in clinical practice.

A review on the importance of genotyping and phenotyping in fluoropyrimidine treatment

Fluoropyrimidines, after more than 50 years from their discovery, are still the treatment of many types of cancer, and it is estimated that two million patients receive fluoropyrimidine therapy annually. The toxicity associated with fluoropyrimidines affects 30–40% of patients and some adverse effects can be lethal.

Dihydroypyrimidine dehydrogenase is the main enzyme in the catabolism of 5-FU and DPD activity deficiency can cause important toxicity. This is an important reason to determine DPD activity in order to improve patient safety and to limit potential life-threating toxicity.

At presentmultiple phenotypic and genotypic methods are available for the determination of DPD activity, some of these methods have proven their usefulness in practice, and yet they are not routinely recommended in clinical practice.

This review is another statement of the importance of the determination of DPD status, the phenotypic and genotypic methods that are available and can be used.

Pharmacogenomics of anticancer drugs: Personalising the choice and dose to manage drug response

The field of pharmacogenomics has made great strides in oncology over the last 20 years and indeed a significant number of pre-emptive genetic tests are now routinely undertaken prior to anticancer drug administration. Many of these gene-drug interactions are the fruits of candidate gene and genome-wide association studies, which have largely focused on common genetic variants (allele frequency>1%). Examples where there is clinical utility include genotyping or phenotyping for G6PD to prevent rasburicase-induced RBC haemolysis, and TPMT to prevent thiopurine-induced bone marrow suppression. Other associations such as CYP2D6 status in determining the efficacy of tamoxifen are more controversial because of contradictory evidence from different sources, which has led to variability in the implementation of testing. As genomic technology becomes ever cheaper and more accessible, we must look to the additional data our genome can provide to explain interindividual variability in anticancer drug response. Clearly genes do not act on their own and it is therefore important to investigate genetic factors in conjunction with clinical factors, interacting concomitant drug therapies and other factors such as the microbiome, which can all affect drug disposition. Taking account of all of these factors, in conjunction with the somatic genome, is more likely to provide better predictive accuracy in determining anticancer drug response, both efficacy and safety. This review summarises the existing knowledge related to the pharmacogenomics of anticancer drugs and discusses areas of opportunity for further advances in personalisation of therapy in order to improve both drug safety and efficacy.

Comparison of Eight Technologies to Determine Genotype at the UGT1A1 (TA)n Repeat Polymorphism: Potential Clinical Consequences of Genotyping Errors?

To ensure accuracy of UGT1A1 (TA)_n (rs3064744) genotyping for use in pharmacogenomics-based irinotecan dosing, we tested the concordance of several commonly used genotyping technologies. Heuristic genotype groupings and principal component analysis demonstrated concordance for Illumina sequencing, fragment analysis, and fluorescent PCR. However, Illumina sequencing and fragment analysis returned a range of fragment sizes, likely arising due to PCR "slippage". Direct sequencing was accurate, but this method led to ambiguous electrophoregrams, hampering interpretation of heterozygotes. Gel sizing, pyrosequencing, and array-based technologies were less concordant. Pharmacoscan genotyping was concordant, but it does not ascertain (TA)₈ genotypes that are common in African populations. Method-based genotyping differences were also observed in the publication record (p < 0.0046), although fragment analysis and direct sequencing were concordant (p = 0.11). Genotyping errors can have significant consequences in a clinical setting. At the present time, we recommend that all genotyping for this allele be conducted with fluorescent PCR (fPCR).

[Pharmacogenetics for patient care in France: A discipline that evolves!]

Pharmacogenetics, which concepts are known for a long time, is entering a new period at least as far as its practical applications for patients are concerned. In recent years there have been more and more initiatives to promote widespread dissemination, and health authorities are increasingly incorporating these concepts into drug labels. In France, the national network of pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) works to promote these activities, both with health actors (biologists, clinicians) and health authorities. This article reviews the current situation in France and the milestones of the year 2018. It highlights recent advances in this field, in terms of currently recommended analyses, sharing of information or technological developments, and the prospects for future developments in the near future from targeted pharmacogenetics to eventually preemptive approaches.

Pharmacogenomics guidelines: Current status and future development

Genetic polymorphisms impact biological responses to drugs. Current pharmacogenomics guidelines formulated by different countries, such as the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group, the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety, and the French National Network (Réseau) of Pharmacogenetics, play important roles in clinical practices. However, the standards for these guidelines vary significantly, resulting in differences in recommendations. The present article discusses these differences by head-to-head comparison of the existing pharmacogenomics guidelines and proposes new strategies for their future development.

Life-Threatening Irinotecan-Induced Toxicity in an Adult Patient with Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma: The Role of a UGT1A1 Polymorphism

Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (AR) in adult patients is an exceptional malignancy. Management of AR is based on (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy combining ifosfamide, vincristine, and actinomycin D and local curative-intent surgery/radiotherapy. In cases of relapsing AR, the combination of temozolomide/irinotecan is regarded as a possible option. Here we describe life-threatening long-lasting toxicity related to the 1st cycle of irinotecan-based chemotherapy in a 56-year-old woman suffering from locally advanced and metastatic head and neck AR. The patient experienced grade 4 vomiting and diarrheas resulting in acute functional renal failure, associated with grade 4 neutropenia complicated by severe septic shock. The hospital stay duration was 40 days. The analysis of the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene revealed homozygous UGT1A1 ^⁎28 polymorphism with an associated homozygous mutation c.-3275T>G; the latter is associated with a decrease of about 80% of UGT1A1 transcription explaining this irinotecan induced toxicity. Physician must be aware of the potential hematological (mainly neutropenia and infectious disease) and digestive (mainly diarrhea) toxicities caused by irinotecan and especially when the patient presents a UGT1A1 ^⁎28 homozygous allele. UGT1A genotyping performed before initiating treatment is useful to anticipate severe toxic reaction to irinotecan and improve the benefit/risk ratio of its use.

Germline genetic variants with implications for disease risk and therapeutic outcomes

Genetic testing has multiple clinical applications including disease risk assessment, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics can be utilized to predict whether a pharmacologic therapy will be effective or to identify patients at risk for treatment-related toxicity. Although genetic tests are typically ordered for a distinct clinical purpose, the genetic variants that are found may have additional implications for either disease or pharmacology. This review will address multiple examples of germline genetic variants that are informative for both disease and pharmacogenomics. The discussed relationships are diverse. Some of the agents are targeted for the disease-causing genetic variant, while others, although not targeted therapies, have implications for the disease they are used to treat. It is also possible that the disease implications of a genetic variant are unrelated to the pharmacogenomic implications. Some of these examples are considered clinically actionable pharmacogenes, with evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment recommendations, while others are still investigative as areas for additional research. It is important that clinicians are aware of both the disease and pharmacogenomic associations of these germline genetic variants to ensure patients are receiving comprehensive personalized care.