4.2 Article

Clinical and genetic risk factors for the prediction of hepatotoxicity induced by docetaxel, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 87-98

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2020-0080

关键词

combined analysis; early breast cancer; gene polymorphism; risk factors; TEC regimen-induced liver injury

资金

  1. Startup Fund for Scientific Research, Fujian Medical University [2017XQ1025]
  2. Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province [2018Y9045]
  3. Key Project for Youth Academic Talents from Health and Family Planning Commission of Fujian Province [2019-ZQN-39]
  4. Fujian Provincial Department of Science & Technology of the People's Republic of China [2017Y0035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that SOD2 and ABCG2 gene polymorphisms are associated with an increased risk of TEC regimen-induced liver injury. Analyzing the combined effect of clinical and genetic factors can better predict the risk of TEC-ILI.
Aim: To screen clinical and genetic risk factors and examine their combined effect on docetaxel, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (TEC) regimen-induced liver injury (TEC-ILI). Patients & methods: We enrolled 396 breast cancer patients, and TEC-ILI-associated factors were screened by logistic regression analyses. Results: SOD2 rs4880 and ABCG2 rs2231142 polymorphisms correlated with an increased risk of TEC-ILI. Multivariate analysis incorporating clinical and genetic factors revealed that ABCC1 rs246221 (CC) and SOD2 rs4880 (AG/GG) increased the risk of TEC-ILI. Patients with at least two risk factors among nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, high low-density lipoproteinemia levels and the rs246221 or rs4880 adverse genotypes exhibited a significantly increased risk of developing TEC-ILI. Conclusion: The combination of clinical and genetic risk factors had higher predictive value for TEC-ILI than the interclinical risk factors alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据