Citations

Abstract Purpose: Inherited variability in the prognosis of lung cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy has been widely investigated. However, the overall contribution of genetic variation to platinum response is not well established. To identify novel candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)/genes, we carried out a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for cisplatin cytotoxicity by using lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCL), followed by an association study of selected SNPs from the GWAS with overall survival (OS) in lung cancer patients. Experimental Design: A GWAS for cisplatin was conducted with 283 ethnically diverse LCLs. A total of 168 top SNPs were genotyped in 222 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 961 non-SCLC (NSCLC) patients treated with platinum-based therapy. Association of the SNPs with OS was determined by using the Cox regression model. Selected candidate genes were functionally validated by siRNA knockdown in human lung cancer cells. Results: Among 157 successfully genotyped SNPs, 9 and 10 SNPs were top SNPs associated with OS for patients with NSCLC and SCLC, respectively, although they were not significant after adjusting for multiple testing. Fifteen genes, including 7 located within 200 kb up or downstream of the 4 top SNPs and 8 genes for which expression was correlated with 3 SNPs in LCLs were selected for siRNA screening. Knockdown of DAPK3 and METTL6, for which expression levels were correlated with the rs11169748 and rs2440915 SNPs, significantly decreased cisplatin sensitivity in lung cancer cells. Conclusions: This series of clinical and complementary laboratory-based functional studies identified several candidate genes/SNPs that might help predict treatment outcomes for platinum-based therapy of lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 17(17); 5801–11. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Abstract #6037 Background: Tamoxifen (Tam) is biotransformed to the potent antiestrogen, endoxifen, by the CYP2D6 enzyme. We previously demonstrated that patients (pts) receiving adjuvant TAM with impaired CYP2D6 metabolism due to CYP2D6 (*4) and/or concurrent administration of a CYP2D6 inhibitor had a higher risk of recurrence. Other studies suggest CYP2C19*17 (Schroth JCO 2007) and SULT1A1*2 (Nowell JNCI 2002) may be associated with treatment outcome. With extended follow-up, we sought to evaluate the importance of comprehensive CYP2D6 genotyping as well as the potential association between CYP2C19*17 and SULT1A1 copy number with clinical outcome in pts randomized to TAM in NCCTG 89-30-52.
 Methods: Using DNA derived from paraffin embedded sections, CYP2D6 and SULT1A1 genotype were determined using quantitative multiplex PCR and CYP2C19 by sequencing. Pts administered the following CYP2D6 inhibitors (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, cimetidine, amiodarone, doxepin, ticlopidine and haloperidol) were considered as intermediate (IM) or poor metabolizers (PM) based on the potency of CYP2D6 inhibition. CYP2D6 phenotype was defined as follows: extensive metabolizers (EM) were pts not administered an inhibitor who did not carry a null allele (*3, *4, *6) and who were not homozygous for an IM allele (*10, *17, *41). CYP2D6 IM were either heterozygous for a null allele or homozygous for an IM allele but not administered an inhibitor or CYP2D6 EM administered a weak inhibitor. PM were pts homozygous for a null allele, or any patient administered a potent inhibitor. The association between genotype or CYP2D6 phenotype and clinical outcome was determined using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox modeling was performed using traditional prognostic factors.
 Results: The median follow-up of living pts is now 14.5 years. Of 256 pts. randomized to TAM, genotype was determined for CYP2D6 (n=210), CYP2C19*17 (n=170), and SULT1A1 (n=169) with the following allele frequencies: CYP2D6 *3 (.02), *4(.20), *6 (.01), *10 (.03), *17 (.00), *41(.08), and CYP2C19*17 (.22). The frequency of SULT1A1 copy number alleles (CNA) was 1 (4%), 2 (67%), 3 (20%), and 4+ (9%). 14/227 patients (6%) were administered an inhibitor. A multivariate analysis accounting for nodal status and tumor size demonstrated that compared to CYP2D6 EM, CYP2D6 PM had significantly shorter time to recurrence (TTR) (HR 4.0, p=0.001) and DFS (HR 2.0, p=0.02) and CYP2D6 IM tended to have shorter TTR (HR 1.8, p=0.08) and DFS (HR 1.4, p=0.10). DFS did not differ by SULT1A1 copy number (p=0.62) or CYP2C19 *17 (p=0.47)
 Conclusion: Long term follow-up of pts in NCCTG 89-30-52 confirms the importance of CYP2D6 metabolism and further demonstrates the importance of comprehensive genotyping and phenotyping with CYP2D6 inhibitors. We could not identify an association between CYP2C19*17 or SULT1A1 copy number with recurrence but further evaluation is needed in larger cohorts. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6037.

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is commonly treated with platinum compounds. The “glutathione pathway” participates in the metabolism of platinum compounds. We set out to test the hypotheses that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or copy number polymorphisms for genes within the glutathione pathway might influence survival in lung cancer patients treated with these drugs. Methods: Germline DNA samples from 973 lung cancer patients were genotyped for 290 glutathione pathway SNPs. GSTT1 copy number was also assayed. We determined the association of these polymorphisms with survival for lung cancer patients, followed by functional genomic validation. Results: We observed suggestive associations between survival and GSTT1 copy number (P = 0.017), and GSTA5, GSTM4, and ABCC4 SNPs, adjusted for covariates (P = 0.018, 0.002, and 0.002, respectively) or not (P = 0.005, 0.011, and 0.002). One hundred lymphoblastoid cell lines were then treated with cisplatin, and IC50 values were significantly associated with the GSTM4 SNP (P = 0.019). Furthermore, GSTM4, GSTT1, and ABCC4 overexpression significantly decreased cisplatin sensitivity in lung cancer and HEK293T cell lines. Conclusions: These results suggest that GSTM4 polymorphisms are biomarkers for the prediction of cisplatin response. ABCC4 polymorphisms, as well as GSTT1 copy number, may also help to predict cisplatin response, but further validation is required. These results represent a step toward the individualized chemotherapy of lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(3); 811–21

Abstract Glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) is of importance for cancer research because of its role in detoxifying carcinogens, activating antineoplastic prodrugs, metabolizing chemotherapeutic agents, and its involvement in cell cycle and apoptosis regulation. Two common GSTP1 genetic polymorphisms have been studied extensively. However, the full range of GSTP1 genetic variation has not been systematically characterized in the absence of disease pathology. We set out to identify common GSTP1 polymorphisms in four ethnic groups, followed by functional genomic studies. All exons, splice junctions, and the 5′-flanking region of GSTP1 were resequenced using 60 DNA samples each from four ethnic groups. The 35 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) identified included six nonsynonymous SNPs and 17 previously unreported polymorphisms. GSTP1 variant allozymes were then expressed in COS-1 cells, and five displayed significantly altered levels of enzyme activity. One decreased to 22% of the wild-type (WT) activity. Four variant allozymes had Km values that differed significantly from that of the WT, and five showed altered levels of immunoreactive protein compared with WT, with a significant correlation (r = 0.79, P < 0.007) between levels of immunoreactive protein and enzyme activity in these samples. In the Mexican American population, five linked SNPs were significantly associated with GSTP1 mRNA expression, one of which was found by electrophoretic mobility shift assay to alter protein binding. These studies have identified functionally significant genetic variation, in addition to the two frequently studied GSTP1 nonsynonymous SNPs, that may influence GSTP1's contribution to carcinogen and drug metabolism, and possibly disease pathogenesis and/or drug response. [Cancer Res 2008;68(12):4791–801]

Abstract Purpose: The glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) catalyze the glutathione conjugation of reactive electrophiles, including carcinogens and many antineoplastic drugs. GSTT1 and GSTM1 are polymorphically deleted, but the full range of genetic variation in these two genes has not yet been explored. We set out to systematically identify common polymorphisms in GSTT1 and GSTM1, followed by functional genomic studies. Experimental Design: First, multiplex PCR was used to determine GSTT1 and GSTM1 copy number in 400 DNA samples (100 each from 4 ethnic groups). Exons, splice junctions, and 5′-flanking regions (5′-FR) were then resequenced using DNA samples that contained at least one copy of GSTT1 or GSTM1. Results: Gene deletion frequencies among ethnic groups were from 33.5% to 73.5% for GSTT1 and from 50.5% to 78.0% for GSTM1. GSTT1 deletion data correlated with the results of mRNA microarray expression studies. The 18 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) observed in GSTT1 included three nonsynonymous coding SNPs (cSNPs) and one single-nucleotide deletion, whereas the 51 GSTM1 SNPs included two nonsynonymous cSNPs. Two of the GSTT1 nonsynonymous cSNPs resulted in decreases in levels of immunoreactive protein to 56% and 12% of wild type (WT), whereas those in GSTM1 resulted in modest increases in protein levels. Reporter gene assays showed that one GSTT1 5′-FR haplotype, with a frequency of 32% in African-American subjects, resulted in an increase in transcription in JEG-3 cells to 351% of that for the WT sequence, and one GSTM1 5′-FR haplotype resulted in an increase in transcription in JEG-3 cells to 129% of WT. Conclusions: These observations suggest that functionally significant pharmacogenomic variation beyond GSTT1 and GSTM1 gene deletion may contribute to carcinogenesis or individual variation in antineoplastic drug therapy response.

Abstract Background: Immunoassay-based screening for amphetamines has a variable positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting amphetamine abuse. The lack of immunoassay specificity necessitates confirmatory testing by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS), but the technical complexity and expense of GC/MS limit its availability. Physicians may make decisions regarding patient disposition based on unverified results. In this study we assessed the utility of using dose–response properties to distinguish urine samples containing amphetamines from samples containing cross-immunoreactive species. Methods: Urine was supplemented with known concentrations of amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or pseudoephedrine. Using a series of dilutions, we determined the maximum change in rate over the fractional change in concentration for each compound in the Emit® II amphetamine/methamphetamine immunoassay. Patient urine samples that screened positive for amphetamines were diluted 1:1, 1:10, and 1:20, and maximum slope estimates within the dynamic assay range were determined. An optimal slope cutoff that differentiated samples containing (meth)amphetamine from those containing cross-reacting species was determined by ROC analysis. Results: The slope of the dose response was largest for amphetamine and methamphetamine, followed by MDMA and pseudoephedrine. The optimum slope cutoff for identifying patient specimens containing (meth)amphetamine was 320 (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 90%; PPV, 92%). High concentrations of less reactive compounds may mask low concentrations of amphetamines. Conclusions: Use of the slope of the dose–response relationship in patient urine specimens can enhance the PPV of presumptive positive immunoassay results but does not exclude the presence of low amphetamine concentrations in samples containing high concentrations of cross-reactive species.