4.2 Article

Single nucleotide polymorphisms to predict taxanes toxicities and effectiveness in cancer patients

Journal

PHARMACOGENOMICS JOURNAL
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 491-497

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00227-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study suggests that SNPs in certain genes could affect the toxicity and effectiveness of taxanes in the treatment of solid tumors. Variants in CYP3A4*22 and CYP2C8 may influence toxicity, while ABCB1 c.3435 may impact efficacy, although no statistically significant associations were found.
Taxanes are used in the treatment of several solid tumours. Adverse events (AEs) might be influenced by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding proteins responsible for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic. In this prospective, monocentric, observational study we explored the effect of SNPs in the main genes involved in taxanes metabolism and transport, on toxicity and efficacy in 125 patients (pts) treated with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, or docetaxel for neoplasms. There was no statistically significant association between the investigated SNPs and AEs. The heterozygous genotype of CYP3A4*22 showed a trend of association with skin reactions in pts treated with paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel (RR = 6.92; 95% CI 0.47, 99.8; p = 0.0766). CYP2C8*3/*4 variant carriers showed a trend of association with overall AEs in pts treated with paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel (RR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.96, 1.67; p = 0.0898). No statistically significant relationship with treatment efficacy was found. ABCB1 3435TT showed a trend of association with a higher treatment response (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.03, 1.51; p = 0.0876). Despite the population was heterogeneous, CYP3A4*22 and CYP2C8 SNPs may influence paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel toxicity and ABCB1 c.3435 may affect taxanes effectiveness, even if any statistically significant was found.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available