UGT1A1*28 polymorphisms: a potential pharmacological biomarker of irinotecan-based chemotherapies in colorectal cancer

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.

Pharmacogenomics, biomarker network, and allele frequencies in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Over the last decades, several studies have shown that tumor-related genomic alterations predict tumor prognosis, drug response, and toxicity. These observations have led to the development of several therapies based on individual genomic profiles. As part of these approaches, pharmacogenomics analyses genomic alterations which may predict an efficient therapeutic response. Studying these mutations as biomarkers for predicting drug response is of a great interest to improve precision medicine. We conduct a comprehensive review of the main pharmacogenomics biomarkers and genomic alterations affecting enzyme activity, transporter capacity, channels, and receptors; and therefore the new advances in CRC precision medicine to select the best therapeutic strategy in populations worldwide, with a focus on Latin America.

Chasing the personalized medicine dream through biomarker validation in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health burden worldwide. The optimal approach to the diagnosis, management, and treatment of CRC involves multidisciplinary and integrated management practices. The field is rapidly changing because of recent advancements in delineating the molecular basis of tumorigenesis, introduction of targeted therapy, varied patient response to mainstay chemotherapeutics, biological drugs, and the effective combination regimes being used for treatment. Recent meta-analysis studies, which tend to establish few clinically useful predictor biomarkers, identify inconsistent results and limitations of the trials. Therefore, molecular pathological epidemiology discipline initiatives are promising. Here, we provide an overview of the potential of biomarker validation for personalized medicine by focusing largely on metastatic (m)CRC. We also highlight new candidate predictive and prognostic biomarkers.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of elvitegravir and cobicistat in HIV-1-infected individuals

OBJECTIVES

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine is among the preferred regimens for first-line ART. A population approach was used to characterize the pharmacokinetics of elvitegravir and cobicistat and identify individual factors and co-medications influencing their disposition, taking into consideration the interaction between the two compounds.

METHODS

The study population included 144 HIV-infected individuals who provided 186 and 167 elvitegravir and cobicistat plasma concentrations, respectively. First, distinct NONMEM(®) analyses were conducted for elvitegravir and cobicistat, including individual demographic, clinical and genetic factors as potential covariates. Elvitegravir and cobicistat interaction was then assessed through different inhibitory models. Simulations based on the final model served to compare expected drug concentrations under standard and alternative dosage regimens.

RESULTS

Clearance with between-subject variability was 7.6 L/h [coefficient of variation (CV) 16.6%] and volume of distribution 61 L for elvitegravir and 16.0 L/h (CV 41.9%) and 88.3 L, respectively, for cobicistat. Concomitant administration of non-ritonavir-boosted atazanavir decreased elvitegravir clearance by 35%, likely due to UDP-glucuronosyl transferase (UGT) 1A1 inhibition. Concomitant administration of non-ritonavir-boosted atazanavir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir decreased cobicistat clearance by 47% and 27%, respectively. The final interaction model included cobicistat exposure (AUC0-24) on elvitegravir clearance. Simulations confirmed that a reduced elvitegravir dose of 85 mg co-administered with cobicistat and atazanavir produces a concentration-time course comparable to the standard regimen without atazanavir.

CONCLUSIONS

Elvitegravir and cobicistat pharmacokinetic variability appears to be mainly explained by drug-drug interactions that may be encountered in routine clinical practice. In these cases, therapeutic drug monitoring and surveillance for potential toxicities would be justified.

Molecular Genetics External Quality Assessment Pilot Scheme for Irinotecan-Related UGT1A1 Genotyping in China

Irinotecan is widely used in the treatment of solid tumors, especially in colorectal cancer and lung cancer. Molecular testing for UGT1A1 genotyping is increasingly required in China for optimum irinotecan administration. In order to determine the performance of laboratories with regard to the whole testing process for UGT1A1 to ensure the consistency and accuracy of the test results, the National Center for Clinical Laboratories conducted an external quality assessment program for UGT1A1*28 genotyping in 2015. The panel, which comprised of four known mutational samples and six wild-type samples, was distributed to 45 laboratories that test for the presence of UGT1A1*28 polymorphisms. Participating laboratories were allowed to perform polymorphism analysis by using their routine methods. The accuracy of the genotyping and reporting of results was analyzed. Other information from the individual laboratories, including the number of samples tested each month, accreditation/certification status, and test methodology, was reviewed. Forty-four of the 45 participants reported the correct results for all samples. There was only one genotyping error, with a corresponding analytical sensitivity of 99.44% (179/180 challenges; 95% confidence interval: 96.94-99.99%) and an analytical specificity of 100% (270/270 challenges; 95% confidence interval: 98.64-100%). Both commercial kits and laboratory development tests were commonly used by the laboratories, and pyrosequencing was the main methodology used (n = 26, 57.8%). The style of the written reports showed large variation, and many reports showed a shortage of information. In summary, the first UGT1A1 genotyping external quality assessment result demonstrated that UGT1A1 genotype analysis of good quality was performed in the majority of pharmacogenetic testing centers that were investigated. However, greater education on the reporting of UGT1A1 genetic testing results is needed.

Personalized treatment for patients with colorectal cancer: role of biomarkers

The systemic treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) has traditionally been based on clinical and tumor histological criteria. Recently however, several prognostic and predictive biomarkers have been proposed for patients with newly diagnosed CRC, including the subgroup with stage II disease. Among the best validated prognostic biomarkers for CRC are CEA levels, MS instability status and certain gene signatures. Although no biomarker currently exists for identifying patients likely to benefit from chemotherapy, the mutational status of KRAS and NRAS is used to predict response to cetuximab and panitumumab. For upfront identification of patients at high risk of suffering from severe therapy-related toxicity, specific variants of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase may be measured for predicting toxicity from fluoropyrimidines and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase*28 (UGT1A1*28) for predicting toxicity from irinotecan.

Correlation of UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 polymorphisms with irinotecan-induced neutropenia in Thai colorectal cancer patients

UDP-glucuronosyltransferase1A1 (UGT1A1) polymorphisms have been related with irinotecan toxicity. The purpose of this study was to determine the associations between UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 polymorphisms and irinotecan toxicity in Thai patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. 44 metastatic colorectal cancer patients received irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Hematologic toxicities were determined in the first and second cycles of treatment. The genotypes of UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 were analyzed by pyrosequencing technique. The frequencies of genetic testing for UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 polymorphisms were 22.8% (TA6/TA7; 20.5%, TA7/TA7; 2.3%) and 15.9% (GA), respectively. No patients had the homozygous UGT1A1(*)6 (AA). Neither UGT1A1(*)28 nor UGT1A1(*)6 polymorphisms were significantly associated with severe hematologic toxicities. However, analysis of UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 in combination revealed an association with severe neutropenia in the first and second cycles (P = 0.044, P = 0.017, respectively). Both UGT1A1(*)28 and (*)6 polymorphisms may have an increased risk of irinotecan-induced neutropenia in Thai colorectal cancer patients.