The role of pharmacogenetics in capecitabine efficacy and toxicity
S.W. Lam, H.J. Guchelaar, E. Boven
PII: S0305-7372(16)30064-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.08.001
Reference: YCTRV 1528
To appear in: Cancer Treatment Reviews Cancer Treatment Re-
views
Received Date: 6 June 2016
Revised Date: 1 August 2016
Accepted Date: 3 August 2016
Please cite this article as: Lam, S.W., Guchelaar, H.J., Boven, E., The role of pharmacogenetics in capecitabine efficacy and toxicity, Cancer Treatment Reviews Cancer Treatment Reviews (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ctrv.2016.08.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
SW Lama, HJ Guchelaarb, E Bovena*
aDepartment of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands bDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
*Correspondence:
Epie Boven, MD PhD Department of Medical Oncology VU University Medical Center
De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands Tel.: +31-20-4444336
Fax: +31-20-4444079
E-mail address: [email protected]
Number of words: 6,759 Number of tables: 3 Number of figures: 1
Number of supplementary tables: 1 Number of references: 70
Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and approved for treatment of various malignancies. Hereditary genetic variants may affect a drug’s pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics and account for differences in treatment response and adverse events among patients. In this review we present the current knowledge on genetic variants, commonly single- nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), tested in cohorts of cancer patients and possibly useful for prediction of capecitabine efficacy or toxicity. Capecitabine is activated to 5-FU by CES, CDA and TYMP, of which SNPs in CDA and CES2 were found to be associated with efficacy and toxicity. In addition, variants in genes of the 5-FU metabolic pathway, including TYMS, MTHFR and DPYD also influence capecitabine efficacy and toxicity. In particular, well-known SNPs in TYMS and DPYD as well as putative DPYD SNPs had an association with clinical outcome as well as adverse events.
Inconsistent findings may be attributable to factors related to ethnic differences, sample size, study design, study endpoints, dosing schedule and the use of multiple agents. Of the SNPs described in this review, dose reduction of fluoropyrimidines based on the presence of DPYP variants *2A (rs3918290), *13 (rs55886062), -2846A>T (rs67376798) and -1236G>A/HapB3 (rs56038477) has
already been recommended. Other variants merit further validation to establish their definite role in explanation of interindividual differences in the outcome of capecitabine-based therapy.
Key words: Genetic polymorphisms, capecitabine, toxicity, efficacy
Introduction
Capecitabine, a prodrug of the antimetabolite 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), has been registered for treatment of colon cancer in the adjuvant setting as well as for treatment of advanced colon, breast and gastric cancer. The drug is active as single agent, but can also be combined with other cytotoxic agents, such as oxaliplatin 1,2, irinotecan 2, a taxane 3 or cisplatin 1 . In colon cancer, a pooled analysis of randomized trials has shown equivalence in efficacy between infusional 5-FU- and capecitabine- containing regimens 4. In advanced esophago-gastric cancer, meta-analysis of two randomized trials in which patients received infusional 5-FU or capecitabine combinations, overall survival (OS) was even superior for the latter treatment regimen 5. The convenience of an oral formulation given daily for a particular period mimicking continuous 5-FU infusion makes capecitabine an attractive treatment option, although regular monitoring of patient’s adherence to oral anticancer medication balanced by tolerability is important to ensure optimal drug exposure. Of interest, some tumors express high levels of thymidine phosphorylase (TYMP), the rate-limiting enzyme activating capecitabine to 5-FU, enabling high and sustained intratumoral levels of active drug 6.
Although the efficacy of capecitabine is considered to be equivalent to 5-FU, their toxicity profiles vary. Both drugs induce gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs), of which the incidence of nausea is not different among comparative treatment groups 4. In case of capecitabine, the incidence of stomatitis is significantly lower 4, while that of diarrhea is significantly increased especially when combined with irinotecan 7. In comparison with intermittent 5-FU, capecitabine is associated with a lower rate of neutropenia, but hand-foot syndrome (HFS) occurs far more frequently 4. Both drugs are known for a low prevalence of cardiovascular toxicity 8.
The incidence and severity of AEs of capecitabine depend on therapy-related factors, such as dosing schedule, duration, previous treatment and overlapping toxicity when combined with cytotoxic agents. Dosing usually consists of administration twice daily for two weeks followed by a rest period of one week in a three-week cycle. The starting dose is 1,250 mg/m2 twice daily when given as single agent, but dose reductions are frequently required to improve tolerability 2,3. In breast cancer, a lower starting dose of 1,000 mg/m2 or dose-adjusting capecitabine during treatment does not seem to compromise efficacy 9. In combination regimens, initial doses vary between 825 – 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily.
Host-related factors of influence on capecitabine-induced AEs are dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzymatic activity, renal dysfunction, gender and age, body weight, regional differences, and drug-drug interactions 2,10-12. The DPD enzyme is required to convert 5-FU to 5- fluorodihydrouracil. Deficient or low DPD activity due to alterations in the DPYD gene is estimated to occur in 3-5% of individuals, which may lead to increased toxicity from 5-FU as well as capecitabine
11. Another important factor of influence on interindividual differences in AEs is renal function. A 50%
decrease in creatinine clearance is associated with a 50% reduction in clearance of the toxic catabolite fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL) 12. Concentration-effect analyses have shown a positive relationship between the area under the curve (AUC) of FBAL and treatment-related grade ≥3 diarrhea 13. For that reason, tailored doses of capecitabine are recommended in case of reduced creatinine clearance, while therapy is withheld if clearance is less than 30 mL/min 12. For gender, the clearance of FBAL is less in women 12. The age-related increase in concentration of FBAL might be explained by a physiological decrease in renal function in the elderly 2,12. A high body weight results in a high body surface area, which is associated with a high volume of distribution and a decreased clearance of FBAL 12. Regional variations in the tolerability of capecitabine as well as 5-FU have been reported in studies in which patients were included from US and East-Asia 2, but underlying reasons for the differences are not clear. For drug-drug interactions, some drugs are mentioned to be of influence on metabolism, while caution is required with concomitant use of nephrotoxic agents 2,12.
Research in pharmacogenetics has gained interest with respect to its contribution to our understanding of the interindividual variation in drug effects. Genetic polymorphisms, primarily single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), may affect expression and/or activity of various proteins including drug-metabolizing enzymes, drug transporters and targets, or transcription factor binding sites resulting in altered gene expression, i.e. encoding for proteins involved in detoxification or excretion. Extensive studies have been carried out on SNPs linked to the 5-FU metabolic pathway for prediction of treatment response and/or toxicity. The well-known example is DPD of which the DPYD*2A variant results in a catalytic inactive form of the enzyme leading to excessive toxicity 14.
Given similarities between capecitabine and 5-FU in terms of their mechanism of action and elimination, these genetic variations also affect the outcome of capecitabine. Moreover, novel genetic variants might be identified in the key enzymes of capecitabine activation to 5-FU. In this comprehensive review, we summarized the information available on SNPs in the capecitabine- activating pathway as well as 5-FU-metabolizing genes in order to determine, whether these genetic variants play a role in the differential efficacy and toxicity from capecitabine among individuals.
Capecitabine metabolic pathway
Capecitabine is activated to 5-FU through a three-step enzymatic process consecutively requiring carboxylesterase (CES), cytidine deaminase (CDA) and TYMP (Figure 1) 15. After rapid intestinal absorption, the first step of activation primarily occurs in the liver and involves enzymatic hydrolysis by CES producing 5′-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine (5′-DFCR). Among three 60-kDa CES isoenzymes, CES1A2 and CES2 exert highest catalytic efficiencies in the hydrolysis of capecitabine in vitro 16. 5′-DFCR is converted to 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5′-DFUR) by CDA, which is a ubiquitous enzyme mainly expressed in the liver. High CDA activity in cancer cells has been associated with increased sensitivity to capecitabine 17,18. Moreover, a potential role of CDA in capecitabine toxicity has been suggested in patients that developed severe life-threatening AEs in the presence of high serum activity of CDA 19,20. It is of note that while CDA is involved in the activation of capecitabine, it functions as a major detoxifying enzyme for other antimetabolites, such as gemcitabine and cytarabine 17,18. The final conversion of 5′-DFUR to 5-FU is mediated by TYMP. Given the relatively higher TYMP expression in some tumors compared to healthy tissue, preferential activation of capecitabine to 5-FU might lead to tumor selectivity 6,21,22. TYMP expression is elevated in the palm compared with the back of the hand, which was hypothesized to be a major causative mechanism for capecitabine-related HFS 23.
The mechanism of action of 5-FU has been described elsewhere 24 and entails, briefly, misincorporation of 5-FU metabolites into RNA and DNA and inhibition of thymidylate synthase (TYMS). In particular, TYMS inhibition by 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine 5’-monophosphate (FdUMP) triggers a cascade of molecular alterations that lead to misincorporation of 5-FU metabolites into DNA, impaired DNA replication, synthesis and repair, which eventually leads to DNA breaks.
Preclinical findings in human cancer cell lines have demonstrated that high TYMS activity was associated with 5-FU resistance 25. Methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is one of the many enzymes that play a role in the metabolism of folates, their primary source is diet. MTHFR carries out a central reaction by irreversibly catalyzing the conversion of 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate (5,10-MTHF) to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, the primary circulating form of folate, which serves as a methyl-group for DNA methylation reactions 26. An elevated level of 5,10-MTHF, such as in low MTHFR activity, might theoretically lead to greater inhibition of TYMS and enhanced cytotoxicity of 5-FU.
The catabolism of 5-FU is mainly controlled by DPD, which is a rate-limiting enzyme in the liver responsible for conversion of 80% of 5-FU into dihydrofluorouracil (DHFU) 15. DPD levels vary considerably among individuals with consequences for efficacy and toxicity during 5-FU therapy 11,14. Low DPD activity results into severe AEs due to accumulation of active 5-FU metabolites 11,14. DHFU is then converted to fluoro-β-ureidopropionate (FUPA) and subsequently to FBAL by dihydropyrimidinase and β-ureidopropionase, respectively 15. Excretion of the metabolites occurs by
the kidney 22. Mean urinary recovery of the administered dose amounts to 71 – 87% and mainly consists of FBAL (51 – 62%), followed by 5’-DFUR (7 – 11%) and 5’-DFCR (6 – 7%) and small percentages of other compounds.
Genetic polymorphisms and functionality
Several candidate SNPs involved in capecitabine efficacy and/or toxicity have been investigated for functionality in the past. A brief overview is provided here for better interpretation of pharmacogenetic results.
TYMS genetic variants located in the regulatory regions have shown to influence the transcription rate. Higher intratumoral TYMS levels may translate into relative resistance to 5-FU 27-29. Of particular interest is TYMS 2R or 3R (rs45445694) constituting double or triple tandem repeats of 28 base pairs (bp) in the 5’untranslated region (UTR). An enhancer box (E-box) sequence containing a binding site for upstream stimulating factors (USFs) is located in the first of the double tandem repeats of the 2R allele and the two first of the triple tandem repeats of the 3R allele. Binding of USFs to the E-box enhances the TYMS transcription rate and, consequently, 3R compared to 2R will result in greater enzyme activity as demonstrated in vitro 27,29. Furthermore, a glycine to cysteine substitution in the second of the triple tandem repeats of the 3R allele is denoted as TYMS 3RC or 3RG (rs2853542). TYMS 3RG is associated with a reduced transcription rate in vitro presumably due to the loss of the second E-box binding site 27,29. In few studies 30,31, patients were grouped in a low activity (2R/2R, 2R/3RC or 3RC/3RC), intermediate activity (2R/3RG or 3RC/3RG), and high activity class (3RG/3RG). Another putative SNP (rs183205964) is located in the 5’UTR of TYMS constituting a glycine to cysteine substitution in the first repeat of 2R (denoted as 2RC), which affects the functional E-box resulting in reduced TYMS expression 32. Lastly, a SNP constituting an insertion or deletion of 6 bp in the 3’ UTR, TYMS 3’UTR ins6 or del6 (rs16430), in which TYMS 3’UTR del6 conferred reduced transcription 27,29.
Two SNPs related to MTHFR activity are located in exon 4 (MTHFR -677C>T, rs1801133) and in exon 7 (MTHFR -1298C>A, rs1801131), of which the MTHFR -667T and -1298C alleles and the haplotype of both risk alleles led to lower enzymatic activity in vitro 33. Reduced enzyme activity may result in enhanced cytotoxicity of fluoropyrimidines 28, but unequivocal evidence is lacking 33.
Moreover, high intracellular folate appears to stabilize the protein structure of MTHFR, thereby counteracting the detrimental effect of MTHFR -667T and -1298A alleles on enzyme activity 33. Folate status, which is dependent on dietary habit and intake of folate supplements, is an important confounding factor, thereby potentially obscuring the effects of MTHFR SNPs.
DPYD is a large and highly polymorphic gene with several hundreds of reported genetic variants. SNPs in DPYD may cause enzyme deficiency resulting in toxicity from fluoropyrimidine
treatment. It is estimated that up to 5% of the population is deficient in DPD enzyme activity 11,14,34. The rare DPYD IVS14+1G>A (*2A, rs3918290) entails a glycine to alanine substitution at the conserved splice donor site of intron 14. This causes exon 14 skipping resulting in a nonfunctional DPD protein, which has repeatedly been shown to induce severe toxicity 14. Carriers of the *2A allele had an approximately two-fold higher exposure to 5-FU, as apparent from dose-normalized AUC, than wild-type individuals 35. More frequently observed genetic variants are -1627A>G (*5, rs1801159), -2194G>A (*6, rs1801160) and -85T>C (*9A, rs1801265), but their association with DPD activity has been inconsistent 14. Other rare functional variants include *13 (rs55886062), -2846A>T (rs67376798) and -1236G>A/HapB3 (rs56038477). A genome-wide association study (GWAS) has pointed towards putative DYPD SNPs associated with toxicity, but their functional impact remains to be elucidated 36.
Since detoxification of 5-FU by DPD is a rate-limiting process, increased activation of capecitabine might augment the likelihood of AEs. To date, functional evidence regarding TYMP and CES SNPs is lacking 37,38. With respect to capecitabine and metabolites, CES2 -823C>G (rs11075646) was not associated with the AUC of 5-FU 38. CDA SNPs may explain highly variable enzyme activity among individuals 18. An ultra-metabolizer status was found to be associated with increased efficacy 17 and severe toxicity from capecitabine 18,19. Mostly investigated CDA SNPs, such as CDA 208G>A (*3, rs60369023; occurring in Japanese and Korean subjects), CDA -451C>T (rs532545), -943del/insC (rs3215400) and -79A>C (*2, rs2072671), have shown to affect exposure to CDA-metabolized drugs or to be associated with altered enzyme activity 18,28,39, but data on capecitabine pharmacokinetics are lacking.
Genetic polymorphisms possibly associated with efficacy from capecitabine Thymidylate synthase
Pharmacogenetic research on capecitabine efficacy has mostly been carried out with focus on TYMS, because of its role as the key therapeutic target (Table 1). In two out of seven studies on capecitabine monotherapy, a possible role for TYMS SNPs was suggested to explain differences in efficacy among individuals. TYMS 5’ 3RG/3RG was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) in 105 advanced breast cancer patients 30, whereas TYMS 5′ 2R/2R was associated with a higher response rate in a small cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer 40. In most studies (n=10), however, treatment was capecitabine based including other cytotoxic agents. An association between TYMS SNPs and clinical outcome has been mentioned in four reports. In 58 metastatic colorectal cancer patients, it appeared that both TYMS 5′ 2R/2R and TYMS 3′UTR ins6/ins6 were preferentially present in the group with a good response on capecitabine and raltitrexed 41. In 125 patients with metastatic gastric cancer receiving a capecitabine-based regimen 42, carriers of a TYMS 3’UTR del6 allele had a significantly longer median overall survival (OS) than those harboring the TYMS 3’UTR ins6/ins6 genotype (11.4 vs 6.8 months, p=0.014). The TYMS 3’UTR ins6/ins6 genotype appeared to be an independent prognostic factor for short PFS and OS. LaBonte et al. 31 reported no association of TYMS 5’UTR SNPs (2R/3R, 3RC/3RG) or 3’UTR ins6/del6 with treatment response or time to tumor progression (TTP) in 240 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving capecitabine with or without lapatinib. However, when considering the group treated with capecitabine monotherapy (n=125), patients carrying TYMS 5’UTR variations (2R/3RG, 3RC/3RG and 3RG/3RG) demonstrated a longer TTP of 7.1 months compared to those carrying alternate genotypes (2R/2R, 2R/3RC or 3RC/3RC). In that study, OS was not an endpoint. Joerger et al. 43 recently reported that the presence of 3RG, denoted as TYMS high-expression genotype, was associated with shorter PFS in advanced colorectal cancer patients (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03, p=0.006) and in advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients (HR = 5.4, p<0.001) as well as with shorter OS in the advanced gastroesophageal cancer group (HR = 4.74, p<0.001). When correcting for prognostic factors, the TYMS high-expression genotype predicted for worse OS in advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients (HR = 5.44, p <0.001).
Of particular interest is the study of Pander et al. 44 that was performed in 279 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab. None of the 17 SNPs involved in pathways of each of the three agents was associated with PFS. However, a genetic interaction profile consisting of polymorphisms in the capecitabine and bevacizumab pathways (TYMS 3RG and VEGF -405G>C) could stratify patients into groups with different PFS. Patients allocated to the beneficial profile group had a significantly longer PFS than those in the unfavorable profile group (13.3 vs 9.7 months, p<0.001). Although the presence of a real interaction was not
examined, these findings show that analysis of SNPs representing different therapeutic pathways may provide more comprehensive predictive information.
Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase
In all eight pharmacogenetic studies on MTHFR and capecitabine included in this review, MTHFR - 677C>T or -1298C>A were not associated with treatment outcome (Table 1). Among them were two studies on capecitabine monotherapy 30,45.
Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase
The rare variant DPYD IVS14+1G>A has been investigated in five studies, but an association with capecitabine efficacy has not been reported (Table 1). Since DPYD is a polymorphic gene with multiple variants, Deenen et al. 46 sequenced the coding region to identify novel associations of putative SNPs with capecitabine efficacy. Although the investigators primarily focused on capecitabine-related toxicity, eight SNPs were tested for their association with PFS and OS in 568 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. None of these was individually related to clinical outcome, but patients carrying a haplotype consisting of six SNPs (DPYD -85T, -496A, -1236G, -1601G, -1627A and -2194G) experienced a longer OS (HR = 0.57, p=0.03). The frequency of this haplotype was rather low (2.7%).
Cytidine deaminase and carboxylesterase
To date, few investigators have assessed SNPs of enzymes for capecitabine activation, such as CDA and CES, in relation with capecitabine efficacy. Ribelles et al. 47 were the first to report on CES2 5’UTR
-823C>G (rs11075646) and capecitabine efficacy in 136 patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer. Carriers of a CES2 5’UTR -823 G-allele had a significantly higher response rate (59 vs 32%, p=0.015) and longer TTP (8.7 vs 5.3 months, p=0.014) than wild-type carriers. The prognostic potential of CES2 5’UTR -823CG remained significant for longer TTP after adjustment for clinical confounders (HR = 0.56, p = 0.036). CDA SNPs were not associated with outcome in that study. In 111 patients with metastatic breast cancer on capecitabine monotherapy, Martin et al. 48 reported that CDA rs602950 was associated with PFS (HR per allele 1.44, p=0.038), while CDA rs2072671 was associated with PFS (HR = 1.77, p=0.0031) and OS (HR = 1.55, p=0.032). Interestingly, two SNPS in TYMP, namely rs11479 and rs470119, were associated with OS (HR = 2.36, p=0.010, and HR 1.46, p=0.034, respectively).
Other genetic polymorphisms possibly associated with capecitabine efficacy
Molecular pathways not apparently related to capecitabine metabolism or mechanism of action have been evaluated in search for putative genetic markers potentially useful to predict capecitabine efficacy. SNPs in apoptosis-related genes might be associated with decreased cell death and, therefore, indicate therapy resistance 49. In 76 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine and oxaliplatin, 17 variants in genes regulating the apoptotic process were investigated for an association with response, PFS or OS 49. Only the TT genotype of PTGS2 8473T>C (rs5275), a gene encoding prostaglandin synthase 2 as an enzyme involved in prostaglandin synthesis, was associated with poor PFS (HR = 0.47, p=0.046) and OS (HR = 0.16, p=0.013) independent of clinically prognostic factors. However, since many anticancer agents can induce apoptosis in tumor cells, PTGS2 8473T>C may not specifically be associated with capecitabine efficacy.
In another study on capecitabine combined with docetaxel for advanced breast cancer, the Drug Metabolizing Enzymes and Transporters (DMET) genotyping platform was employed to assay 79 genetic variations in cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes 50. From the analysis, CYP1A1 rs1048943 A>G was associated with longer PFS for carriers of a G-allele compared with wild-type carriers (8.3 vs 5.3 months, p=0.0003). CYP1A1 rs1048943 A>G remained prognostic for PFS after adjusting for hormone receptor and menstruation status. Since the role of CYP1A1 in either the taxane or the capecitabine pathway or even in breast cancer is not known, further confirmation of this finding is needed.
Genome-wide association study
Recent advances in high-throughput technologies enable simultaneous profiling of thousands of genetic variants and may lead to the identification of novel genetic associations, which cannot be detected by the traditional gene-based approach. Recently, O’Donnell et al. 51 used the publicly available, genome-wide SNP data from the International Haplotype Map project, which have previously been generated from human lymphoblastoid cell lines from different ethnic individuals. Capecitabine sensitivity was determined for the same cell lines by a cell growth inhibition assay and was correlated with GWAS data. This analysis showed that cell lines from the Caucasian population were least sensitive to capecitabine, whereas cell lines from the population of Yoruba individuals from Ibadan, Nigeria were the most sensitive. From the independent analysis of each population, adenylate cyclase 2 (ADCY2 rs4702484) was associated with capecitabine sensitivity at a near genome-wide significant level for the Caucasian population (p=5.2 x 10-8). Meta-analysis of all populations revealed several SNPs, including ADCY2 rs4702484, although none reached genome- wide statistical significance. This study illustrates the opportunity of integrating in vitro data and high-throughput genotyping data for discovery of novel genetic markers associated with drug sensitivity. However, the predictive value of ADCY2 rs4702484 as well as another two SNPs for PFS,
RR, clinical benefit and OS could not be confirmed in 268 metastatic colorectal cancer patients randomized for capecitabine without or with oxaliplatin 52. It has to be stressed, however, that the investigators corrected for multiple testing requiring lower significance values.
Genetic polymorphisms possibly associated with toxicity from capecitabine Thymidylate synthase
TYMS SNPs were generally not associated with overall toxicity of capecitabine or specific AEs, including gastrointestinal symptoms, neutropenia and HFS (Table 2). In all capecitabine monotherapy studies (n=6), a clear association between TYMS variants and capecitabine-related toxicity was not evident.
In 239 patients with different stages of colorectal cancer, TYMS 2R/3R was univariately associated with dose delay/reduction/discontinuation of capecitabine as well as with grade >1 HFS 53. In the multivariate analysis, carriers of 2R/2R had an increased risk of capecitabine dose delay/reduction/discontinuation (odds ratio [OR] 3.07, p=0.016), grade >1 HFS (OR 3.78, p<0.001), and grade >2 HFS (OR 3.63, p=0.025). In the same study, univariate analysis pointed towards TYMS 3’UTR ins6/del6 of which the percentage of nausea/vomiting grade >2 was higher in del6/del6 carriers, while the percentage of HFS grade >1, HFS grade >2 and that of asthenia grade >2 was higher in ins6/ins6 carriers. In the multivariate analysis, however, TYMS 3’UTR ins6/del6 was not a significant risk factor. In the large QUASAR2 trial of adjuvant capecitabine with or without bevacizumab for colorectal cancer, both TYMS 2R and TYMS 3’UTR ins6 were significantly associated with an increased risk of overall grade ≥3 toxicity (respectively, OR = 1.48, p=0.000079 and OR = 1.67, p=0.00084) and grade ≥3 HFS (respectively, OR = 1.44, p = 0.0013 and OR = 1.47, p=0.021) 54. When combined into a TYMS risk score based on the number of high-risk alleles, TYMS 2R and TYMS 3’UTR ins6 were predictive for overall toxicity (OR = 1.38, p=0.00031) as well as HFS (OR = 1.31, p=0.0063). Of interest, a meta-analysis combining current study data with data from other pharmacogenetic studies on capecitabine monotherapy 30,45,47,55, TYMS 2R or TYMS 3’UTR ins6 remained a significant risk factor for developing overall grade ≥3 toxicity (respectively, OR = 1.36, p=0.00028 and OR = 1.35, p=0.012) as well as grade ≥3 HFS (respectively, OR = 1.33, p=0.0029 and OR = 1.43, p=0.0091). In a recent report on 1,605 patients treated with fluoropryimidines (89% capecitabine-based, 11% 5-FU- based), genotype analysis was carried out for TYMS 3RC and 2RC 32. Patients carrying 3RC/2RC, 2RG/2RC or 2RC/2RC were considered to have higher TYMS enzymatic activity. Indeed, the 20 patients with these genotypes had a higher risk of global severe toxicity (OR = 3.0, p=0.039), treatment discontinuation (OR 3.6, p=0.025) and hospitalization for toxicity (OR = 3.8, p=0.018). In the multivariate analysis, the association remained significant for global severe toxicity (OR = 3.0, p=0.043) and hospitalization for toxicity (OR 3.8, p=0.024). Lastly, TYMS -1053C>T was associated with overall grade ≥3 toxicity (p=0.004), in which a higher rate was observed in the group CT + TT carriers 56.
In the QUASAR2 trial cohort GWAS has been carried out in search for novel genetic markers which can complement current SNP markers 36. A total of 1,456 genetic variants in the 5-FU
metabolic pathway were determined. Interestingly, an intronic SNP (rs2612091) of ENOSF1, located downstream of TYMS, was associated with overall grade ≥3 toxicity (OR = 1.59, p=5.28×10−6) and grade ≥3 HFS (OR = 1.57, p=2.94×10−6). Further analysis was performed to explore the relationship of ENOSF1 rs2612091 and two 5-FU toxicity variants in TYMS (TYMS 2R/3R or TYMS 3’UTR ins6/del6).
Interestingly, the G-allele of ENOSF1 rs2612091 alone predicted HFS irrespective of the two TYMS genotypes (p=0.0021). It thus appears, that ENOSF1 rs2612091 may account for the association between TYMS genetic polymorphisms and capecitabine-induced AEs. Recently, ENOSF1 rs2612091 as a candidate marker of toxicity was confirmed in two studies reporting an association with grade>1 HFS (OR 2.28, p=0.027) 53 as well as overall grade ≥3 toxicity (p=0.027) 56. The function of ENOSF1 is not fully characterized, although it has been suggested to regulate TYMS mRNA expression or protein levels 57.
Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase
Findings from three relatively small studies 30,45,58 have shown an association of MTHFR -677C>T and – 1298A>C with capecitabine-related AEs, whereas another six were negative. Sharma et al. 45 reported in 54 advanced colorectal cancer patients on capecitabine monotherapy that patients with the MTHFR -677TT genotype experienced less overall grade 2–3 toxicity (OR = 0.1, p<0.05), while CT and TT individuals experienced less grade 2–3 fatigue (OR = 0.08, p<0.05). Carriers of a T-allele of MTHFR
-677C>T tended to have a higher risk of grade 2–3 HFS (OR = 10.8, p=0.05). Furthermore, the MTHFR
-1298 C-allele was associated with more overall grade 2–3 toxicity (OR = 5.6, p<0.01) and grade 2 – 3 fatigue (OR = 10.8, p<0.05). In another study on 244 patients with different solid tumors receiving a capecitabine-based regimen, the MTHFR-1298 CC genotype indicated a higher risk of grade 2–3 HFS than the AA or AC genotypes (OR = 9.99, p=4.1 x 10-6) 58. Zarate et al. 59 investigated both SNPs in 60 colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, although HFS was not a specific endpoint. Carriers of the MTHFR -1298AA genotype experienced more AEs, including grade 3–4 neutropenia (p=0.035), hematological (p=0.05) and gastrointestinal toxicity (p=0.023).
However, the recent analysis of 927 colorectal cancer patients participating in the QUASAR2 trial could not confirm the predictive value of either MTHFR -677C>T or -1298A>C for overall grade ≥3 toxicity, grade ≥3 diarrhea or grade ≥3 HFS 54.
Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase
The predictive value of DPYD IVS14+1G>A (*2A) for capecitabine-related AEs has clearly been assessed in several studies, but most investigators could not report an association possibly due to its low frequency. Of interest, the rare patients with a IVS14+1G>A mutation experienced excessive or even life-threatening toxicity 30,43,55,58 or mutation carriers were not present in the cohort 47.
Several studies have been done in search for putative DPYD polymorphisms demonstrating novel associations with capecitabine-related AEs. Through sequencing the coding region of DPYD, Deenen et al. 46 identified eight candidate SNPs discriminating between metastatic colorectal cancer patients experiencing grade ≥3 capecitabine-related toxicities (n=45) and those without such toxicities (n=100). These SNPs were validated in the total cohort (n=568) for their association with diarrhea, HFS and overall toxicity. Five DPYD SNPs (-496A>G, -1236G>A/HapB3, IVS14+1G>A, – 2194G>A, -2846A>T) were associated with grade 3–4 diarrhea (p≤0.04), but their positive predictive values were low to moderate (33–71%). Only the DPYD -496 G-allele indicated the development of grade 2–3 HFS (p=0.03). Of note, capecitabine dose reduction was more often observed in heterozygous carriers of DPYD IVS14+1G>A (p<0.0001) and -2846A>T (p=0.005). Haploblocks on the basis of six SNPs were formed and the haploblock consisting of five wild-type loci and one SNP heterozygous for -85C>T was associated with a decreased risk of grade 3-4 diarrhea (p<0.05). This finding points in a similar direction to that in another study, in which the DPYD -85 C-allele and the - 2846 T-allele were associated with diarrhea (respectively, p=0.023 and p=0.028) and the DPYD -85 C- allele was also associated with HFS (p=0.033) 43. The DPYD -1896 C-allele was associated with stomatitis in that study (p=0.021). In the QUASAR2 trial, an increased risk of overall grade ≥3 toxicity was found for carriers of the A-allele of DPYD -2846T>A (OR = 9.35, p=0.0043) 54. In addition, carrying either a DPYD IVS14+1 A-allele or -2846 A-allele was significantly associated with an increased risk of overall grade ≥3 toxicity (OR = 5.51, p=0.0013). This prompted the same investigators to perform GWAS in the QUASAR2 trial cohort in search for additional genetic markers which can complement current SNP markers 36. A total of 1,456 genetic variants in the 5-FU metabolic pathway were determined. Several putative SNPs were predictive for capecitabine-related toxicities including the intergenic SNP (rs12132152) located 22 kb downstream of DYPD, which was associated with overall grade ≥3 toxicity (OR = 3.83, p=4.31×10−6) and grade ≥3 HFS (OR = 6.12, p=3.29×10−8). Another putative intronic SNP in DYPD (rs7548189), occurring at a high frequency (20%), indicated an increased risk of overall grade ≥3 toxicity (OR = 1.23, p=6.82×10−6) and grade ≥3 diarrhea (OR = 1.18, p=1.54×10−5) for variant carriers.
Capecitabine-activating enzymes
Several case reports have emerged documenting life-threatening toxicities following capecitabine administration to patients with high CDA activity, but normal DPD activity, who were previously treated uneventfully with 5-FU 19,20. These findings point towards the importance of the activation cascade of capecitabine involving CES, CDA and TYMP and the occurrence of AEs. Information on CDA SNPs and possible toxicity from capecitabine is most extensive.
The frequently assessed SNPs in CDA are -451C>T (rs532545), -943insC (rs3215400) and – 79A>C (rs2072671). The presence of a T-allele of CDA -451C>T indicated a higher risk of grade 3 HFS (OR = 2.02, p=0.039) in 130 patients with breast or colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine monotherapy 55. Functional analysis, however, showed no association between CDA -451C>T and mRNA expression, which suggested that another, co-inherited variation in the CDA promoter would be of more importance. CDA -943insC, in linkage disequilibrium with CDA -451C>T, appeared to affect CDA mRNA expression and might better discriminate the HFS phenotype. Carriers of CDA – 943insC had a lower risk of grade 3 HFS (OR = 0.51, p=0.028). The predictive value of CDA -943insC for HFS could not be replicated in several other studies 47,48,58. In 244 patients with different cancer types, Loganayagam et al. 58 also investigated CDA -451C>T and reported its association with grade 2–4 diarrhea in the first four cycles of capecitabine-based therapy (OR = 2.3, p=0.0082). In that study, CDA -92A>G was associated with grade 2–4 diarrhea and grade 2–4 dehydration. Regarding CDA – 79A>C, no significant association with capecitabine-related toxicities was reported in five studies, whereas in two studies CDA -79A>C was indicative of overall grade≥3 toxicity (OR=1.84, p=0.029) 53 as well as grade≥3 hematological toxicity 56. Particularly, in the analysis of 927 colorectal cancer patients in the QUASAR2 study 54, CDA −451C>T or -79A>C appeared not to be predictive for capecitabine-related toxicities i.e. overall toxicity, HFS and diarrhea. García-González et al. 53 reported that apart from CDA -79A>C, also ABCB1*1 (rs1128503, rs2032582, rs1045642) was associated with overall toxicity (p<0.001), and calculated a CDA-ABCB1 risk score based on the number of risk alleles (from 0 – 8). A CDA-ABCB1 score >5 predicted overall toxicity with a sensitivity of 43.5%, a specificity of 76.9% and the positive predictive value was 54.1%.
Five studies on CES2 SNPs have been performed, in which -823C>G has primarily been investigated. Only Martin et al 48 described an increased risk of grade ≥3 HFS for carriers of the G- allele of CES2 5’UTR -823C>G (OR = 4.49, p=0.01) in 99 advanced breast cancer patients on capecitabine monotherapy. In the few studies on SNPs in CES1 36 as well as in TYMP 36,54,55 no associations with capecitabine-related AEs were reported.
Discussion
In this comprehensive review we summarize findings derived from pharmacogenetic reports on capecitabine. Currently available evidence indicates several genetic variants in 5-FU-metabolizing enzymes TYMS, DYPD, as well as in capecitabine-activating enzymes CDA, CES2, having an impact on efficacy or toxicity, although reported associations are somewhat inconsistent. Factors such as patients’ characteristics, population differences in allele frequency, sample size, study design (case- control, randomized trial), definition and assessment of study endpoints, schedule of administration, drug dosing, combination therapy, differ across studies rendering inconclusive results 60.
In most studies in this review 5-FU-metabolizing genes have been assessed including TYMS, MTHFR and DYPD, of which TYMS was the most frequently investigated candidate gene. Although the majority of investigators did not find an association, poor clinical outcome has been reported in patients carrying TYMS 5′ 3R/3R, TYMS 3′UTR del6/del6 41, TYMS 3′UTR ins6/ins6 42 as well as a combination of several TYMS variants 31,43. This is in line with extensive data from 5-FU pharmacogenetic reports 61, because of which the role of TYMS variants as indicator of clinical outcome remains undetermined. Regarding toxicity, a recent large-scale study has pointed towards a potential role for TYMS 2R, 3’UTR ins6 or the combination of both SNPs for the prediction of overall toxicity as well as HFS 54, but these findings warrant further confirmation. Of interest is the finding that ENOSF1 rs2612091 may reflect the presence of TYMS genetic polymorphisms associated with a higher risk of HFS 36.
The impact of DYPD, a major detoxifying enzyme of 5-FU, in the development of severe 5-FU- related toxicity has been well acknowledged 11. Genotyping of DPYD IVS14+1G>A (*2) and other risk variants [-1679T>G(*13) and -2846A>T] is generally accepted to screen individuals at risk of developing severe and potentially life-threatening toxicities from fluoropyrimidine treatment. For patients carrying risk alleles, dose reduction is recommended according to the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guideline 14. For capecitabine, one study has been reported in which the combination of a DPYD IVS14+1 A-allele and a DPYD -2846 A-allele was associated with overall toxicity 54. Other investigators have described DPYD -85T>C, DPYD -1896T>C and DPYD -2846A>T to be associated with gastrointestinal toxicity and DPYD -85T>C with HFS 43.
Meulendijks et al. 62 have reviewed eight pharmacogenetic studies on DPYD variants and toxicity from fluoropyrimidines, in which -1679T>G (*13) and -1236G>A/HapB3, but not -1601G>A (rs1801158), were found to be clinically relevant predictors. Of interest are several putative genetic variants in DPYD detected by GWAS as possible markers for capecitabine-induced AEs 36, although their functional impact on 5-FU metabolism remains to be elucidated.
Of variants in genes encoding enzymes responsible for capecitabine activation (CDA, CES and
TYMP), CDA -92A>G and 79A>C 48, CES2 -823C>T 47 and TYMP Ser741Leu 48 have shown an
association with outcome of patients treated with capecitabine monotherapy. Regarding AEs, SNPs in CDA (-92A>G, -451C>T, -943delC) and in CES2 (-823C>T) have been associated with gastrointestinal toxicity as well as HFS 48,55,58. Although further confirmation is needed, these findings indicate the importance of capecitabine-activating enzymes as putative biomarkers specifically useful for the prediction of capecitabine efficacy and toxicity.
Advancements in array technology have enabled near-genome wide and high-throughput analysis of several hundreds to thousands of genetic variations. The potential of this technology is exemplified by one recent GWAS in which several novel SNPs well as a common variant of DYPD have been identified to be associated with capecitabine AEs 36. Although in most studies on capecitabine a traditional candidate gene approach has been employed, it is expected that the GWAS approach using a SNP array will be increasingly conducted for the identification of novel variants of clinical relevance.
Genetic polymorphisms associated with increased or decreased enzyme activity may likely affect drug pharmacokinetics and, thereby, be useful as biomarkers. However, even carriers of a dysfunctional DYPD variant do not always experience AEs suggesting that the effect of one single genetic variant on enzyme activity may be modest. Haplotype analysis considering multiple functional variants within one gene or in multiple genes has been advocated to provide a more powerful approach to detect a more realistic association than one single genetic variant 63, such as used by Deenen et al. 46. Moreover, given the complexity of drug metabolism involving various steps, assessment of multiple genetic polymorphisms of enzymes in the activation or detoxification pathways may be preferred over a single genetic marker. Lastly, apart from genetic polymorphisms, other mechanisms including microRNA, methylation and copy number variations are able to regulate gene expression inducing changes in enzyme synthesis.
Currently, few clinically valid pharmacogenetic markers are available that may help to individualize initial dosing of capecitabine-based therapy. Of DPYD, *2A, -1679T>G(*13), -2846A>T and -1236G>A/HapB3, are convincingly associated with fluoropyrimidine-associated severe AEs 34. Some groups have already incorporated DPYD SNPs into clinical practice to select the initial drug dose 34,35,64. Of interest, a prospective DPYD genotyping study of the aforementioned four SNPs is running in which heterozygous carriers receive reduced starting doses followed by further dose adjustment based on tolerability 65. Individual drug dosing might also be considered on the basis of DPD functional activity measurements prior to treatment 66. Genotype screening technology, however, is within reach at decreasing costs enabling clinicians to have easy access to this life-saving strategy in the near future 65.
In conclusion, pharmacogenetic studies have accumulated valuable data supporting the use of genetic polymorphisms to differentiate efficacy and toxicity from capecitabine therapy. Evidence
points towards particular variants in DPYD with respect to toxicity from fluoropyrimidines, because of which upfront screening with use of an extended panel for safety reasons is recommended 14,62.
Further, novel variants in genes encoding enzymes activating the capecitabine-activation pathway as well as several putative SNPs identified by GWAS deserve further research.
Conflict of Interest statement
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Reference List
⦁ Lordick F, Lorenzen S, Yamada Y, Ilson D. Optimal chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: is there a global consensus? Gastric Cancer 2014 Apr;17(2):213-25.
⦁ Sun W. Evolution of capecitabine dosing in colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2010 Jan;9(1):31-9.
⦁ Naughton M. Evolution of capecitabine dosing in breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2010 Apr;10(2):130-5.
⦁ Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Barni S. 5-Fluorouracil or capecitabine in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a pooled-analysis of randomized trials. Med Oncol 2012 Jun;29(2):1020-9.
⦁ Okines AF, Norman AR, McCloud P, Kang YK, Cunningham D. Meta-analysis of the REAL-2 and ML17032 trials: evaluating capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy and infused 5-fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced oesophago-gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 2009 Sep;20(9):1529- 34.
⦁ Bonotto M, Bozza C, Di Loreto C, Osa EO, Poletto E, Puglisi F. Making capecitabine targeted therapy for breast cancer: which is the role of thymidine phosphorylase? Clin Breast Cancer 2013 Jun;13(3):167-72.
⦁ Iacovelli R, Pietrantonio F, Palazzo A, Maggi C, Ricchini F, De Braud F, et al. Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil: a meta-analysis of published trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014 Dec;78(6):1228-37.
⦁ Polk A, Vaage-Nilsen M, Vistisen K, Nielsen DL. Cardiotoxicity in cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine: a systematic review of incidence, manifestations and predisposing factors. Cancer Treat Rev 2013 Dec;39(8):974-84.
⦁ Leonard R, Hennessy BT, Blum JL, O’Shaughnessy J. Dose-adjusting capecitabine minimizes adverse effects while maintaining efficacy: a retrospective review of capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2011 Dec;11(6):349- 56.
⦁ Meulendijks D, Van Hasselt JG, Huitema AD, Van Tinteren H, Deenen MJ, Beijnen JH, et al. Renal function, body surface area, and age are associated with risk of
early-onset fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity in patients treated with capecitabine-based anticancer regimens in daily clinical care. Eur J Cancer 2016 Feb;54:120-30.
⦁ Amstutz U, Froehlich TK, Largiadèr CR. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene as a major predictor of severe 5-fluorouracil toxicity. Pharmacogenomics 2011 Sep;12(9):1321-36.
⦁ Midgley R, Kerr DJ. Capecitabine: have we got the dose right? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2009 Jan;6(1):17-24.
⦁ Gieschke R, Burger HU, Reigner B, Blesch KS, Steimer JL. Population pharmacokinetics and concentration-effect relationships of capecitabine metabolites in colorectal cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003 Mar;55(3):252-63.
⦁ Caudle KE, Thorn CF, Klein TE, Swen JJ, McLeod HL, Diasio RB, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype and fluoropyrimidine dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013 Dec;94(6):640-5.
⦁ Thorn CF, Marsh S, Carrillo MW, McLeod HL, Klein TE, Altman RB. PharmGKB summary: fluoropyrimidine pathways. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2011 Apr;21(4):237-42.
⦁ Quinney SK, Sanghani SP, Davis WI, Hurley TD, Sun Z, Murry DJ, et al. Hydrolysis of capecitabine to 5′-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine by human carboxylesterases and inhibition by loperamide. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2005 Jun;313(3):1011-6.
⦁ Morita T, Matsuzaki A, Kurokawa S, Tokue A. Forced expression of cytidine deaminase confers sensitivity to capecitabine. Oncology 2003;65(3):267-74.
⦁ Serdjebi C, Milano G, Ciccolini J. Role of cytidine deaminase in toxicity and efficacy of nucleosidic analogs. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015 May;11(5):665-72.
⦁ Mercier C, Dupuis C, Blesius A, Fanciullino R, Yang CG, Padovani L, et al. Early severe toxicities after capecitabine intake: possible implication of a cytidine deaminase extensive metabolizer profile. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2009 May;63(6):1177-80.
⦁ Dahan L, Ciccolini J, Evrard A, Mbatchi L, Tibbitts J, Ries P, et al. Sudden death related to toxicity in a patient on capecitabine and irinotecan plus bevacizumab intake: pharmacogenetic implications. J Clin Oncol 2012 Feb 1;30(4):e41-e44.
⦁ Schuller J, Cassidy J, Dumont E, Roos B, Durston S, Banken L, et al. Preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor following oral administration to colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2000;45(4):291-7.
⦁ Reigner B, Blesch K, Weidekamm E. Clinical pharmacokinetics of capecitabine. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001;40(2):85-104.
⦁ Milano G, Etienne-Grimaldi MC, Mari M, Lassalle S, Formento JL, Francoual M, et al. Candidate mechanisms for capecitabine-related hand-foot syndrome. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008 Jul;66(1):88-95.
⦁ Longley DB, Harkin DP, Johnston PG. 5-fluorouracil: mechanisms of action and clinical strategies. Nat Rev Cancer 2003 May;3(5):330-8.
⦁ Johnston PG, Drake JC, Trepel J, Allegra CJ. Immunological quantitation of thymidylate synthase using the monoclonal antibody TS 106 in 5-fluorouracil- sensitive and -resistant human cancer cell lines. Cancer Res 1992 Aug 15;52(16):4306-12.
⦁ Nazki FH, Sameer AS, Ganaie BA. Folate: metabolism, genes, polymorphisms and the associated diseases. Gene 2014 Jan 1;533(1):11-20.
⦁ Lurje G, Manegold PC, Ning Y, Pohl A, Zhang W, Lenz HJ. Thymidylate synthase gene variations: predictive and prognostic markers. Mol Cancer Ther 2009 May;8(5):1000-7.
⦁ Deenen MJ, Cats A, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Part 4: pharmacogenetic variability in anticancer pharmacodynamic drug effects. Oncologist 2011;16(7):1006-20.
⦁ Lima A, Azevedo R, Sousa H, Seabra V, Medeiros R. Current approaches for TYMS polymorphisms and their importance in molecular epidemiology and pharmacogenetics. Pharmacogenomics 2013 Aug;14(11):1337-51.
⦁ Largillier R, Etienne-Grimaldi MC, Formento JL, Ciccolini J, Nebbia JF, Ginot A, et al. Pharmacogenetics of capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2006 Sep 15;12(18):5496-502.
⦁ Labonte MJ, Wilson PM, Yang D, Zhang W, Ladner RD, Ning Y, et al. The Cyclin D1 (CCND1) A870G polymorphism predicts clinical outcome to lapatinib and capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012 Jun;23(6):1455-64.
⦁ Meulendijks D, Jacobs BA, Aliev A, Pluim D, Van Werkhoven E, Deenen MJ, et al. Increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity in patients carrying a G to C substitution in the first 28-bp tandem repeat of the thymidylate synthase 2R allele. Int J Cancer 2016 Jan 1;138(1):245-53.
⦁ Toffoli G, De Mattia E. Pharmacogenetic relevance of MTHFR polymorphisms. Pharmacogenomics 2008 Sep;9(9):1195-206.
⦁ Lunenburg CA, Henricks LM, Guchelaar HJ, Swen JJ, Deenen MJ, Schellens JH, et al. Prospective DPYD genotyping to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time. Eur J Cancer 2016 Feb;54:40-8.
⦁ Deenen MJ, Meulendijks D, Cats A, Sechterberger MK, Severens JL, Boot H, et al. Upfront genotyping of DPYD*2A to individualize fluoropyrimidine therapy: a safety and cost analysis. J Clin Oncol 2016 Jan 20;34(3):227-34.
⦁ Rosmarin D, Palles C, Pagnamenta A, Kaur K, Pita G, Martin M, et al. A candidate gene study of capecitabine-related toxicity in colorectal cancer identifies new toxicity variants at DPYD and a putative role for ENOSF1 rather than TYMS. Gut 2014 Mar 19.
⦁ Bellott R, Le Morvan V, Charasson V, Laurand A, Colotte M, Zanger UM, et al. Functional study of the 830C>G polymorphism of the human carboxylesterase 2 gene. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2008 Mar;61(3):481-8.
⦁ Rudek MA, Connolly RM, Hoskins JM, Garrett-Mayer E, Jeter SC, Armstrong DK, et al. Fixed-dose capecitabine is feasible: results from a pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic study in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013 May;139(1):135-43.
⦁ Carpi FM, Vincenzetti S, Ubaldi J, Pucciarelli S, Polzonetti V, Micozzi D, et al. CDA gene polymorphisms and enzyme activity: genotype-phenotype relationship in an Italian-Caucasian population. Pharmacogenomics 2013 May;14(7):769-81.
⦁ Park DJ, Stoehlmacher J, Zhang W, Tsao-Wei D, Groshen S, Lenz HJ. Thymidylate synthase gene polymorphism predicts response to capecitabine in advanced colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2002 Jan;17(1):46-9.
⦁ Salgado J, Zabalegui N, Gil C, Monreal I, Rodríguez J, García-Foncillas J. Polymorphisms in the thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genes predict response and toxicity to capecitabine-raltitrexed in colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep 2007 Feb;17(2):325-8.
⦁ Gao J, He Q, Hua D, Mao Y, Li Y, Shen L. Polymorphism of TS 3′-UTR predicts survival of Chinese advanced gastric cancer patients receiving first-line capecitabine plus paclitaxel. Clin Transl Oncol 2013 Aug;15(8):619-25.
⦁ Joerger M, Huitema AD, Boot H, Cats A, Doodeman VD, Smits PH, et al. Germline TYMS genotype is highly predictive in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal malignancies receiving capecitabine-based chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015 Apr;75(4):763-72.
⦁ Pander J, Wessels JA, Gelderblom H, Van der Straaten T, Punt CJ, Guchelaar HJ. Pharmacogenetic interaction analysis for the efficacy of systemic treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2011 May;22(5):1147-53.
⦁ Sharma R, Hoskins JM, Rivory LP, Zucknick M, London R, Liddle C, et al. Thymidylate synthase and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene polymorphisms and toxicity to capecitabine in advanced colorectal cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2008 Feb 1;14(3):817-25.
⦁ Deenen MJ, Tol J, Burylo AM, Doodeman VD, De Boer A, Vincent A, et al. Relationship between single nucleotide polymorphisms and haplotypes in DPYD and toxicity and efficacy of capecitabine in advanced colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011 May 15;17(10):3455-68.
⦁ Ribelles N, López-Siles J, Sánchez A, González E, Sánchez MJ, Carabantes F, et al. A carboxylesterase 2 gene polymorphism as predictor of capecitabine on response and time to progression. Curr Drug Metab 2008 May;9(4):336-43.
⦁ Martín M, Martínez N, Ramos M, Calvo L, Lluch A, Zamora P, et al. Standard versus continuous administration of capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer (GEICAM/2009-05): a randomized, noninferiority phase II trial with a pharmacogenetic analysis. Oncologist 2015 Feb;20(2):111-2.
⦁ Kim JG, Chae YS, Sohn SK, Moon JH, Ryoo HM, Bae SH, et al. Prostaglandin synthase 2/cyclooxygenase 2 (PTGS2/COX2) 8473T>C polymorphism associated with prognosis for patients with colorectal cancer treated with capecitabine and oxaliplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2009 Oct;64(5):953-60.
⦁ Dong N, Yu J, Wang C, Zheng X, Wang Z, Di L, et al. Pharmacogenetic assessment of clinical outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with docetaxel plus capecitabine. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012 Jul;138(7):1197-203.
⦁ O’Donnell PH, Stark AL, Gamazon ER, Wheeler HE, McIlwee BE, Gorsic L, et al. Identification of novel germline polymorphisms governing capecitabine sensitivity. Cancer 2012 Aug 15;118(16):4063-73.
⦁ Van Huis-Tanja LH, Ewing E, Van der Straaten RJ, Swen JJ, Baak-Pablo RF, Punt CJ, et al. Clinical validation study of genetic markers for capecitabine efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2015 Jun;25(6):279- 88.
⦁ García-González X, Cortejoso L, García MI, García-Alfonso P, Robles L, Gravalos C, et al. Variants in CDA and ABCB1 are predictors of capecitabine-related adverse reactions in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 2015 Mar 20;6(8):6422-30.
⦁ Rosmarin D, Palles C, Church D, Domingo E, Jones A, Johnstone E, et al. Genetic Markers of Toxicity From Capecitabine and Other Fluorouracil-Based Regimens: Investigation in the QUASAR2 Study, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Oncol 2014 Mar 3;(32):1031-9.
⦁ Caronia D, Martin M, Sastre J, De la Torre J, García-Sáenz JA, Alonso MR, et al. A polymorphism in the cytidine deaminase promoter predicts severe capecitabine- induced hand-foot syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 2011 Apr 1;17(7):2006-13.
⦁ Deenen MJ, Meulendijks D, Boot H, Legdeur MC, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH, et al. Phase 1a/1b and pharmacogenetic study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced cancer of the stomach or the gastroesophageal junction. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015 Dec;76(6):1285-95.
⦁ Dolnick BJ, Angelino NJ, Dolnick R, Sufrin JR. A novel function for the rTS gene. Cancer Biol Ther 2003 Jul;2(4):364-9.
⦁ Loganayagam A, Arenas Hernandez M, Corrigan A, Fairbanks L, Lewis CM, Harper P, et al. Pharmacogenetic variants in the DPYD, TYMS, CDA and MTHFR genes are clinically significant predictors of fluoropyrimidine toxicity. Br J Cancer 2013 Jun 25;108(12):2505-15.
⦁ Zarate R, Rodríguez J, Bandres E, Patiño-Garcia A, Ponz-Sarvise M, Viudez A, et al. Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and capecitabine as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a dose-finding study and pharmacogenomic analysis. Br J Cancer 2010 Mar 16;102(6):987-94.
⦁ Wheeler HE, Maitland ML, Dolan ME, Cox NJ, Ratain MJ. Cancer pharmacogenomics: strategies and challenges. Nat Rev Genet 2013 Jan;14(1):23-34.
⦁ Scartozzi M, Maccaroni E, Giampieri R, Pistelli M, Bittoni A, Del Prete M, et al. 5- Fluorouracil pharmacogenomics: still rocking after all these years? Pharmacogenomics 2011 Feb;12(2):251-65.
⦁ Meulendijks D, Henricks LM, Sonke GS, Deenen MJ, Froehlich TK, Amstutz U, et al. Clinical relevance of DPYD variants c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, and c.1601G>A as predictors of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2015 Dec;16(16):1639-50.
⦁ Balding DJ. A tutorial on statistical methods for population association studies. Nat Rev Genet 2006 Oct;7(10):781-91.
⦁ Magnes T, Melchardt T, Weiss L, Hufnagl C, Greil R, Egle A. Fluorouracil and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotyping. J Clin Oncol 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2433-4.
⦁ Deenen MJ, Cats A, Severens JL, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Reply to T. Magnes et al. J Clin Oncol 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2434-5.
⦁ Yang CG, Ciccolini J, Blesius A, Dahan L, Bagarry-Liegey D, Brunet C, et al. DPD- based adaptive dosing of 5-FU in patients with head and neck cancer: impact on treatment efficacy and toxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011 Jan;67(1):49-56.
⦁ Garcia AA, Blessing JA, Darcy KM, Lenz HJ, Zhang W, Hannigan E, et al. Phase II clinical trial of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced, persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with translational research: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 2007 Mar;104(3):572-9.
⦁ Martinez-Balibrea E, Abad A, Aranda E, Sastre J, Manzano JL, az-Rubio E, et al. Pharmacogenetic approach for capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil selection to be combined with oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008 Jun;44(9):1229-37.
⦁ Spindler KL, Andersen RF, Jensen LH, Ploen J, Jakobsen A. EGF61A>G polymorphism as predictive marker of clinical outcome to first-line capecitabine and oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2010 Mar;21(3):535-9.
⦁ Carlini LE, Meropol NJ, Bever J, Andria ML, Hill T, Gold P, et al. UGT1A7 and UGT1A9 polymorphisms predict response and toxicity in colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine/irinotecan. Clin Cancer Res 2005 Feb 1;11(3):1226-36.
Treatment Study Tumor type Stage Number of patients assessed Efficacy endpoints Capecitabine relevant genesa Number of relevant SNPs assessed Main findings with respect
Capecitabine Largillier et al. 30 Breast Advanced 105 PFS TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD 6 TYMS 5’ genotype class was sequence class 2 > class 3 >
Capecitabine Park et al. 40 Colorectal Metastatic 24 Tumor response (≥50%
decrease for at least 6 weeks) TYMS 1 TYMS 5′ 2R/2R was associat
Capecitabine Garcia et al.
67 Cervix Advanced/recurrent 25 RR TYMS 2 No significant association
Capecitabine Sharma et al.
45 Colorectal Advanced/metastatic 56 RR, OS TYMS; MTHFR 4 No significant association
MTHFR -677TT tended to ha
Capecitabine Ribelles et al.
47 Breast (n=76) and Metastatic 136 RR, TTP TYMS; DPYD; CDA; CES2 14 CES2 5’UTR -823CC was ass
shorter TTP (p=0.014)
CES2 5’UTR -823CC was ass
patients with liver metastas CES2 5’UTR -823CG plus pre predictive for high RR (OR= CES2 5’UTR -823CG was pr
multivariate analysis (HR=0.
colorectal
(n=60)
Capecitabine Martín et al.
48 Breast Metastatic 111 PFS, OS TYMS; TYMP; DPYD; CES2; CDA 16 CDA -92A>G was associated CDA -79A>G was associated (HR=1.55, p=0.032)
TYMP rs11479 (HR=2.36, p=
p=0.034) were associated w
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin Martinez- Balibrea et al.
68 Colorectal Metastatic 47 RR, disease-control rate, PFS TYMS 3 No significant association
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin Spindler et al.
69 Colorectal Metastatic 68 RR, PFS, OS TYMS 1 No significant association
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin Kim et al. 49 Colorectal Metastatic 76 RR, PFS, OS Cell death related SNPs: AKT1; BCL2; BID; CASP3; CASP6; CASP7; CASP8; CASP9; CASP10; FAS; FASLG; RIPK1; TNFRSF10B;
TP53; PTGS2 16 PTGS2 -8473TT was associat p=0.046) and OS (HR=0.16,
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin Van Huis- Tanja et al. 52 Colorectal Metastatic 268 PFS, OS, RR, clinical benefit MTRR; MTHFR; ADCY2; SMARCAD1;
intergenic SNPs 13 ADCY2 wild-type tended to alone group (p=0.018, multi MTRR rs1533268 variant te (p=0.054)
MTRR rs162036 wild-type t (p=0.039)
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin
+
bevacizumab Pander et al.
44 Colorectal Metastatic 279 PFS TYMS; MTHFR 4 No genotypes or haplotype PFS
Patients with ‘beneficial pro and TYMS 5’UTR no 3RG all TYMS 5’UTR 3RG allele, whi
had ‘unfavorable profile’ fo
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin
+
bevacizumab
± cetuximab Deenen et al.
46 Colorectal Metastatic 568 PFS, OS Sequencing of entire DYPD coding regions and 3′ UTR NA One haplotype block consis 1236G, -1601G, -1627A, -21 OS (HR=0.57, p=0.03)
Capecitabine
+ docetaxel +
oxaliplatin Deenen et al.
56 Stomach or gastro-
esophageal Advanced 34 PFS, OS TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD; CDA;
ENOSF1 7 No significant association
Capecitabine
+
Oxaliplatin or capecitabine
+ epirubicin +
cisplatin Joerger et al.43 Colorectal (n=64) and gastro- esophageal (n=76) Advanced/metastatic 140 PFS, OS, RR TYMS, MTHFR, DPYD 44 TYMS 5’UTR 2R/3RG, 3RC/3
expression genotype) were patient groups (both p<0.01 gastroesophageal cancer gr
Capecitabine
+ irinotecan Carlini et al.
70 Colorectal Metastatic 66 RR TYMS 3 No significant association
Capecitabine
+ irinotecan +
oxaliplatin Zarate et al.
59 Colorectal Metastatic 60 RR, PFS, OS TYMS; MTHFR 5 No significant association
Capecitabine LaBonte et al. Breast Metastatic 240 RR, clinical benefit, TTP TYMS; MTHFR 4 For capecitabine alone grou
Table 1. Genetic polymorphisms possibly associated with efficacy from capecitabine-containing therapy
± lapatinib 31 3RC/3RC was associated wit
Capecitabine
+ raltitrexed Salgado et al.
41 Colorectal Metastatic 58 RR (WHO criteria) TYMS; DPYD 3 TYMS 5' 3R/3R preferentiall (p<0.01)
TYMS 3'UTR del6/del6 was
(p<0.05)
Capecitabine
+ paclitaxel Gao et al. 42 Stomach Metastatic 125 RR, PFS, OS TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD 4 TYMS 3'UTR ins6/ins6 was a TYMS 3'UTR ins6/ins6 was a PFS (HR=2.251; p=0.013) an
multivariate analysis
Capecitabine
+ docetaxel Dong et al. 50 Breast Metastatic 69 RR, PFS, OS 79 SNPs in
CYP450 79 CYP1A1 G allele was associa
CYP1A1 G allele was an inde (p=0.004)
NA O’Donnell et al. 51 Lymphoblas toid cell lines NA 503 In vitro sensitivity GWAS NA One SNP (rs4702484) in AD
significant level with capeci population
Four SNPs (rs4702484, rs81 a trend of association with
cohort
asee Supplementary Table 1 for individual SNPs
Abbreviations: CR, complete response; GWAS, genome-wide association study; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; RR, response rate; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; TTP, time to tumor progression; WHO, World Health Organization
Treatment Study Tumor
type Stage Number of
patients assessed Definition of toxicity Capecitabine
relevant Number of
relevant SNPs Main findings with resp
genesa assessed
Capecitabine Largillier et al. 30 Breast Advanced 105 Overall grade 3–4 toxicity at 1st and 3rd cycle TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD 6 TYMS 3RG/3RG tended f (p=0.064)
Capecitabine Park et al. 40 Colorectal Metastatic 23 Grade ≥3 toxicity TYMS 1 No significant associatio
Capecitabine
Capecitabine Garcia et al.
67
Sharma et al.
45 Cervix
Colorectal Advanced/recurren t
Advanced/metastat ic 25
54 Grade 3–4 anemia, gastrointestinal and dermatological toxicity
Overall grade 2–3 toxicity, grade 2-3 fatigue, grade 2-3 TYMS
TYMS; MTHFR 2
5 No significant associatio
MTHFR -677TT was asso toxicity (OR=0.1, p<0.05
HFS MTHFR -677CT and TT w
p<0.05), but tended to m
MTHFR -1298AC+ CC wa
overall toxicity (OR=5.6,
MTHFR -677TT plus -129
of overall toxicity than a
Patients with one or two
overall toxicity than thos
677C>T and -1298A>C (O
Capecitabine Capecitabine
Capecitabine Ribelles et al.
47
Martín et al.
48
Caronia et al.
55 Breast & Colon Breast
Breast and colorectal Metastatic Metastatic
Localized/advanced 136
99
130 Overall grade 3–4 toxicity Grade ≥3 HFS
Grade 3 HFS TYMS; DPYD; CES2; CDA TYMS; TYMP; DPYD; CES2; CDA
TYMS; TYMP; DPYD; CES2; 14
16
16 No significant associatio
CES2 5’UTR 823 G-allele (OR=4.49, p=0.01)
CDA -451 T-allele was as
CDA -943insC was associ
Table 2. Genetic polymorphisms possibly associated with toxicity from capecitabine-containing therapy
CDA
Capecitabine
± Rosmarin et al. 54 Colorectal Localized 927 Overall grade ≥3 toxicity, grade ≥3 diarrhea, grade ≥3 TYMS; MTHFR; DYPD; CES2; 21 TYMS 2R was associated and HFS (OR=1.44, p=0.0
bevacizumab HFS CDA; TYMP; TYMS 3’UTR ins6 was as
UMPS p<0.001) and HFS (OR=1
TYMS risk score, a comb
was associated with ove
(OR=1.31, p=0.0063)
DPYD -2846 A allele was
p=0.0043)
The combination of DPY
associated with overall t
Capecitabine
± Rosmarin et
al. 36 Colorectal Localized 968 Binary comparison (grade 0–2
vs 3–4): overall toxicity, HFS, TYMS; MTHFR;
DPYD; CES1; 1,456 (GWAS) DPYD rs7548189 was as
and diarrhea (ORcont=1.
bevacizumab diarrhea CES2; CDA; DPYD rs12132152 was a
TYMP and ORcont=1.61 ) and
Continuous comparison (grade TYMS/ENOSF1 rs261209
0–1 vs 2 vs 3–4): overall ABCB1; ABCC3; (ORbin=1.59 and ORcon
toxicity, HFS, diarrhea ABCC4; ABCC5; ORcont=1.21)
ABCG2; DPYS;
PPAT; RRM1; Imputed SNPs:
RRM2; DPYD rs76387818 was a
SLC22A7; and ORcont=1.66) and HF
SLC29A1; TK1; DPYD rs12022243 was a
UCK1; UCK2; and ORcont=1.23) and dia
UMPS; UPB1; TYMS/ENOSF1 rs274117
UPP1; UPP2 (ORbin=1.60 and ORcont=1
Capecitabine
+ oxaliplatin Deenen et al.46 Colorectal Metastatic 568 Overall grade 3–4 toxicity, grade 3–4 diarrhea, grade 2–3 DYPD 8 DPYD -496 G-allele was Five DPYD SNPs (-496 G-
+ HFS allele, -2194 A-allele, -28
bevacizumab diarrhea (p≤0.04)
± cetuximab Haplotype block DPYD (
associated with decreas
Haplotype block DPYD (
associated with increase
Haplotype block DPYD (
other variant haplotype
diarrhea (p=0.01)
Capecitabine
+ docetaxel + oxaliplatin Deenen et al.
56 Stomach or gastro- esophagea
l Advanced 34 Grade 2–3 gastrointestinal
toxicity, grade 3-4 hematological toxicity, overall
grade ≥3 toxicity TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD; CDA; ENOSF1 7 CDA -79AC+CC associate
TYMS -1053CT+TT assoc
ENOSF1 rs2612091 AA a
Capecitabine
+
Oxaliplatin or capecitabine
+ epirubicin + cisplatin Joerger et al.43 Colorectal (n=64)
and gastroesop hageal (n=74) Advanced
/metastatic 140 Grade ≥1 HFS, grade ≥1 nausea, grade ≥1 diarrhea, grade ≥1 stomatitis TYMS, MTHFR, DPYD 44 Colorectal cancer group: DPYD -85 C-allele was as MTFR -677 T-allele was a Gastroesophageal cance DPYD -85 C-allele was as DPYD -1896 C-allele was
DPYD -2846 T-allele was
Capecitabine
+ irinotecan Carlini et al.
70 Colorectal Metastatic 66 Grade 3–4 diarrhea or
neutropenia during first two cycles TYMS 2 No significant associatio
Capecitabine
+ irinotecan + oxaliplatin Zarate et al.
59 Colorectal Metastatic 60 Each individual grade 3–4 toxicity or grouped into hematological,
gastrointestinal, other toxicity TYMS; MTHFR 5 MTHFR -1298AA associa MTHFR -1298AA associa (p=0.05) and with more
Capecitabine- based therapy Loganayagam et al. 58 Different cancer types Different stages 244 Grade 3–4 diarrhea, neutropenia, mucositis in the first four cycles of treatment; grade 2–3 HFS TYMS; MTHFR; DPYD; CDA; DPYS 26 CDA -92A>G was associa dehydration (p=0.042) CDA -451C>T was associ MTHFR -1298CC was ass
Capecitabine- based therapy Meulendijks et al. 32 Different cancer types Different stages 1,605 During the first cycle: overall grade ≥3 toxicity, grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicity, grade
≥3 hematological toxicity, grade ≥3 HFS; treatment discontinuation yes/no; hospitalization for toxicity yes/no TYMS 3 Univariate analysis:
TYMS (2RG/2RC, 3RC/2R
toxicity (OR=3.0, p=0.03 p=0.025) and hospitaliza patients with risk genoty
Multivariate analysis:
TYMS (2RG/2RC, 3RC/2R
toxicity (OR=3.0, p=0.04
p=0.024) in patients wit 2RC/2RC)
Capecitabine- based therapy García- González et al. 53 Colorectal Different stages 239 Overall grade ≥3 toxicity, grade >1 HFS, grade >2 HFS,
grade >2 diarrhea, grade >2
nausea/vomiting, grade >2 hematological toxicity, grade
>2 asthenia; dose
delay/reduction/discontinuati on yes/no MTHFR; CDA; ENOSF1; TYMS 9 Univariate analysis reve CDA -79A>C with overall TYMS 2R/3R with dose d and grade >1 HFS (p=0.0 TYMS ins6/del6 with nau (p=0.011), grade>2 HFS (
ENOSF1 rs2612091 grad ABCB1*1 with dose dela diarrhea (p=0.018), over
Multivariate analysis: CDA -79AA associated w TYMS 2R/2R associated (OR=3.07, p=0.016), gra (OR=3.63, p=0.025) ENOSF1 rs2612091 GG a p=0.027)
ABCB1*1 associated wit (OR=4.49, p=0.006), diar
(OR=4.06, p<0.001)
asee Supplementary Table 1 for individual SNPs
Abbreviations: GWAS, genome-wide association study; HFS, hand-foot syndrome; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; ORbin, odds ratio from binary comparison; ORcont, odds ratio from continuous comparison
Figure 1. Pharmacokinetic pathway of fluoropyrimidines
5-fluorouracil (5FU)
SLC22A7
ABCG2
ABCC4
Tegafur
CYP2A6
5’hydroxytegafur
TYMP
UPP1
UPP2
CDA
5’dFUR
CES1
CES2
5’dFCR
Capecitabine
FBAL
TYMP
5FU
DPYD
DHFU
DPYS
FUPA
UPB1
TK1
FUDR
UMPS PPAT
FUMP
UPP1
UPP2
FUR
Liver cell
UCK1 UCK2
FdUMP
FdUDP
RRM1
RRM2
FUDP
FUTP
TYMS
FdUTP
SLC29A1
PD pathway
ABCC3
ABCC4
ABCC5
Reuptake
gene Efflux/Drug resistance
drug
pathway
Figure reproduced with permission from PharmGKB.
Highlights ‘The role of pharmacogenetics in capecitabine efficacy and toxicity’
⦁ Review on pharmacogenetic research to elucidate interpatient variations in capecitabine efficacy or toxicities
⦁ Current research has primarily focused on well-known 5-FU-metabolizing enzymes
⦁ Emerging data are available on genetic variants of capecitabine-activating enzymes displaying novel associations with efficacy or toxicities from capecitabine RO 09-1978