Abstract
Background Contemporary prophylactic antiemetic regimens have improved the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, many patents still have suboptimal control with over 50% still suffering from nausea. We postulate that an individual’s pharmacogenetic profile may aid in optimizing the use of antiemetic prophylaxis. This study aimed to correlate the genetic determinants of individual patients with the efficacy of the prophylactic antiemetic regimens each received.
Methods Breast cancer patients who were enrolled in 2 previously reported prospective antiemetic studies consented for the present pharmacogenetic study. Prior to highly emetogenic doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, they received a combination of antiemetic prophylaxis: regimen A and B were respectively aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone with or without olanzapine; regimen C was netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone. Effectiveness of antiemetic regimens were mainly assessed by complete protection rate (CP) rates. Patients’ genotypes in 3 genes, HTR3A, HTR3B and TACR1, were analyzed.
Findings Homozygous TT (p.129Tyr) genotype of a non-nonsynonymous variant (rs1176744) in HTR3B and homozygous GG of rs3821313 genotype in TACR1 had better outcome with regimen B (when olanzapine was combined with aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone). Digenic interaction analysis further reveals interaction between rs1176744 (HTR3B) and rs3821313 (TACR1). Patients who were both homozygote T of rs1176744 and homozygote G of rs3821313 achieved the highest CP rate with regimen B (10/12 patients; 83%), in contrast to only 29% (7/24 of patients) given regimen A (p= 0.0027). Patients who were homozygote for G alleles in both rs1176722 of HRB3A and rs3821313 of TACR1 showed the poorest response to regimen A with CP rate of 17% (2/12), while patients given regimen B had the highest CP rate of 70% (7/10) (p= 0.0159). The findings were confirmed upon logistic regression adjusted for clinical factors.
Interpretation The present study confirmed our hypothesis that among Chinese breast cancer patients who received AC, the selection of optimal antiemetic prophylaxis may be aided by assessing an individual’s pharmacogenetic profile. It also highlights a new phenomenon of digenic interaction that has not been known before for pharmacogenetic analysis.
Funding This study was supported by an education grant from Madam Diana Hon Fun Kong Donation for Cancer Research.
Evidence before this study Although contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis has improved control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic AC chemotherapy, complete protection (CP) is achieved in less than 60% of patients while nearly 50% still experience nausea. Does determination of genetic constitution enable selection of the most effective antiemetic prophylaxis?
Added value of this study By applying pharmacogenomic study, homozygous TT of rs1176744 genotype of HTR3B and homozygous GG of rs3821313 genotype in TACR1 were found to have better CP rates when olanzapine is being combined with aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Digenic interaction analysis further reveals significant interaction between these genes. Olanzapine-containing regimen yielded the highest CP rates among patients who were both homozygote T of rs1176744 and homozygote G of rs3821313. Similar findings were also observed for patients who were homozygote G in both rs1176722 of HRB3A and rs3821313 of TACR1.
Implications of all the available evidence Among patients who received highly emetogenic AC chemotherapy, assessment of patients’ genetic constitution can enable appropriate selection of the most optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.
Competing Interest Statement
WY has been involved in the CINV Network in Asia and has been a speaker of the CINV organized by Mundipharma. Mundipharma supported the study design of the netupitant, but had no role in the present analysis, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the other authors declare any conflict of interest. The statements presented in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. Patent filing related to this study is in progress for WY, SLM and NLS. Tang.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by an education grant from Madam Diana Hon Fun Kong Donation for Cancer Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of The Chinese University of Hong Kong gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos