+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism correlates with progression-free survival in MCRC patients treated with or without irinotecan: a study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          A Valine residue at position 105 of the GSTP1 protein results in decreased enzyme activity. As nuclear GSTP1 activity decreases irinotecan cytotoxicity, Val-allele carriers may benefit more from irinotecan chemotherapy. Our aim was to investigate the association of GSTP1 genotype with treatment outcome of irinotecan. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were determined in 267 metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) patients who were treated with first-line capecitabine (CAP) plus irinotecan (CAPIRI), or CAP single agent in a prospective randomised phase III trial (CAIRO). GSTP1 genotype was determined by Pyrosequencing. Patients receiving CAP showed a PFS of 6.6 (Ile/Ile), 6.0 (Ile/Val) and 6.5 months (Val/Val); compared to 7.0 (Ile/Ile), 8.8 (Ile/Val) and 9.2 months (Val/Val) with CAPIRI. Median PFS was 2.7 months longer in Val-allele carriers treated with CAPIRI compared to CAP ( P=0.005). Patients with the Ile/Ile genotype showed similar PFS with CAPIRI and CAP (7.0 compared to 6.6 months, P=0.972). Toxicity did not differ significantly among genotypes. GSTP1 codon 105 polymorphism may be predictive for the response to irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with MCRC, with the Val-allele being associated with a better outcome. Ile/Ile genotype patients do not appear to benefit from the addition of irinotecan to CAP.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

          Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a large phase III study.

            To compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Inc, Nutley, NJ), a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate designed to mimic continuous fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion but with preferential activation at the tumor site, with that of intravenous (IV) 5-FU plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We prospectively randomized 602 patients to treatment with capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) administered twice daily days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, or to the 4-weekly Mayo Clinic regimen (5-FU/LV) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective, to demonstrate at least equivalent response rates in the two treatment groups, was met. The overall response rate was 18.9% for capecitabine and 15.0% for 5-FU/LV. In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, respectively, median time to disease progression was 5.2 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.65); median time to treatment failure was 4.2 and 4.0 months (log-rank P =.89); and median overall survival was 13.2 and 12.1 months (log-rank P =.33). The toxicity profiles of both treatments were typical of fluoropyrimidines. However, capecitabine led to significantly lower incidences (P <.00001) of stomatitis and alopecia, but a higher incidence of cutaneous hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001). Capecitabine also resulted in lower incidences (P <.00001) of grade 3/4 stomatitis and neutropenia, leading to a lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenic fever and sepsis. Only grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and uncomplicated grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia (P <.0001) were reported more frequently with capecitabine. Oral capecitabine achieved an at least equivalent efficacy compared with IV 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine demonstrated clinically meaningful safety advantages and the convenience of an oral agent.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial.

              The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned 820 patients with advanced colorectal cancer to receive either first-line treatment with capecitabine, second-line irinotecan, and third-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (sequential treatment; n=410) or first-line treatment capecitabine plus irinotecan and second-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (combination treatment; n=410). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with with the number NCT00312000. 17 patients (nine in the sequential treatment group, eight in the combination group) were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis. 675 (84%) patients died during the study: 336 in the sequential group and 339 in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.3 (95% CI 14.3-18.1) months for sequential treatment and 17.4 (15.2-19.2) months for combination treatment (p=0.3281). The hazard ratio for combination versus sequential treatment was 0.92 (95% CI 0.79-1.08; p=0.3281). The frequency of grade 3-4 toxicity over all lines of treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, which occurred more often with sequential treatment than with combination treatment (13%vs 7%; p=0.004). Combination treatment does not significantly improve overall survival compared with the sequential use of cytotoxic drugs in advanced colorectal cancer. Thus sequential treatment remains a valid option for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

                Author and article information

                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                16 September 2008
                14 October 2008
                21 October 2008
                : 99
                : 8
                : 1316-1321
                [1 ]simpleDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands
                [2 ]simpleDepartment of Oncology, University Nijmegen Medical Center Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]simpleBiometrics Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ]simpleDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: d.m.kweekel@
                Copyright 2008, Cancer Research UK
                Genetics and Genomics

                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                survival, irinotecan, gstp1, colorectal cancer, capecitabine, toxicity


                Comment on this article