4.7 Article

Association of CYP2C8, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 polymorphisms with the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 22, Pages 8097-8104

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1152

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [U01 GM63340] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the effects of six known allelic variants in the CYP2C8, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 genes on the pharmacokinetics of the anticancer agent paclitaxel (Taxol). Experimental Design: A cohort of 97 Caucasian patients with cancer (median age, 57 years) received paclitaxel as an i.v. infusion (dose range, 80-225 mg/m(2)). Genomic DNA was analyzed using PCR RFLP or using Pyrosequencing. Pharmacokinetic variables for unbound paclitaxel were estimated using nonlinear mixed effect modeling. The effects of genotypes on typical value of clearance were evaluated with the likelihood ratio test within NONMEM. In addition, relations between genotype and individual pharmacokinetic variable estimates were evaluated with oneway ANOVA. Results: The allele frequencies for the CYP2C8*2, CYP2C8*3, CYP2C8*4, CYP3A4*3, CYP3A5*3C, and ABCB1 3435C > T variants were 0.7%,9.2%,2.1%, 0.5%,93.2%, and 47.1%, respectively, and all were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The population typical value of clearance of unbound paclitaxel was 301 L/h (individual clearance range, 83.7-1055 L/h). The CYP2C8 or CYP3A4/5 genotypes were not statistically significantly associated with unbound clearance of paclitaxel. Likewise, no statistically significant association was observed between the ABCB1 3435C > T variant and any of the studied pharmacokinetic variables. Conclusions: This study indicates that the presently evaluated variant alleles in the CYP2C8, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 genes do not explain the substantial interindividual variability in paclitaxel pharmacokinetics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available