4.7 Article

Orotate phosphoribosyltransferase gene polymorphism predicts toxicity in patients treated with bolus 5-fluorouracil regimen

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 3928-3934

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2665

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We investigated whether the determination of orotate phosphoribosyltransferase (OPRT) and thymidylate synthase (TYMS) polymorphisms could predict the toxicity of 5-fluorouracil (5 - FU) in colorectal cancer patients. Experimental Design: The determination of OPRT and TYMS genotypes were done in genomic DNA extracted from blood by PCR amplification in 69 patients treated with bolus 5-FU as adjuvant chemotherapy. Associations between these polymorphisms and toxicity were evaluated retrospectively. Results: The Ala allele in OPRT Gly(213)Ala polymorphism and the two tandem repeats (2R) in TYMS promoter polymorphism were associated with grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and diarrhea. The multivariate logistic regression models revealed that only TYMS promoter polymorphism had an independent value to predict grade 3 to 4 neutropenia [odds ratio, 19.2 for patients with the 2R allele compared with patients with homozygous with the three repeat (3R) alleles], whereas both OPRT and TYMS promoter polymorphisms were independent predictive factors for grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (odds ratio, 13.3 for patients with the Ala allele compared with patients in the Gly/Gly genotype and 11.1 for patients with the 2R allele compared with patients in the 3R/3R genotype). A significant difference was observed in the time to onset of severe toxicity, defined as grade 4 neutropenia and/or grade 3 to 4 gastrointestinal toxicities according to OPRT and TYMS promoter polymorphisms. Conclusion: OPRT Gly(213) Ala polymorphism seems to be a useful marker for predicting toxicity to bolus 5-FU chemotherapy. Prospective translational treatment trials including larger number of patients are needed to confirm our results.

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

4.7
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