The number of pharmacogenetic assays available is continuously expanding as more molecularly targeted anticancer drugs are under clinical development. While the literature regarding drug–gene associations and therapeutic implications is often robust, reviews regarding clinical assay availability and profiling methodologies of commonly used cancer biomarkers are often lacking.
Objective
To concisely identify and describe cancer biomarkers and their respective pharmacogenetic assays currently available in clinical practice.
Discussion
Analysis of germ-line DNA mutations can often help to predict pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses, whereas somatic DNA mutations are particularly useful in predicting tumor response. Molecular profiling and pre-emptive identification of cancer biomarkers can help to predict disease prognosis as well as response to anticancer therapy. Dozens of pharmacogenetic assays, utilizing several common methodologies, are currently available in clinical practice. It is essential for clinicians to understand the molecular pathways for anticancer drugs, the therapeutic implications of mutations within these pathways, the clinical assay(s) available to test for pharmacogenetic differences, and the common profiling methodology employed.
Conclusion
As research continues to unveil more drug–gene and disease–gene associations, it is critical that clinicians understand which pharmacogenetic assays are available to identify inter-individual differences that predict safety and efficacy of anticancer drugs as we move toward the concept of personalized medicine.
MacconaillLEVan HummelenPMeyersonM. Clinical implementation of comprehensive strategies to characterize cancer genomes: opportunities and challenges. Cancer Discov2011; 1: 297–297.
2.
AllegraJCLippmanMEThompsonEB. Distribution, frequency, and quantitative analysis of estrogen, progesterone, androgen, and glucocorticoid receptors in human breast cancer. Cancer Res1979; 39: 1447–1454.
3.
YangXRChang-ClaudeJGoodeEL. Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies. J Natl Cancer Inst2011; b103: b250–b263.
4.
OwensMAHortenBCDa SilvaMM. HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer2004; 5: 63–69.
5.
JinYDestaZStearnsV. CYP2D6 genotype, antidepressant use, and tamoxifen metabolism during adjuvant breast cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst2005; 97: 30–39.
6.
MarshSMcKayJACassidyJ. Polymorphism in the thymidylate synthase promoter enhancer region in colorectal cancer. Int J Oncol2001; 19: 383–386.
7.
LindorNMBurgartLJLeontovichO. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol2002; 20: 1043–1048.
8.
SiddiquiADPiperdiB. KRAS mutation in colon cancer: a marker of resistance to EGFR-I therapy. Ann Surg Oncol2010; 17: 1168–1176.
9.
PereraMAInnocentiFRatainMJ. Pharmacogenetic testing for uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 polymorphisms: are we there yet?. Pharmacotherapy2008; 28: 755–768.
10.
JankuFWhelerJJWestinSN. PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in patients with breast and gynecologic malignancies harboring PIK3CA mutations. J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 777–782.
11.
HeinrichMCCorlessCLDemetriGD. Kinase mutations and imatinib response in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol2003; 21: 4342–4349.
12.
StanullaMSchaeffelerEFlohrT. Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) genotype and early treatment response to mercaptopurine in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. JAMA2005; 293: 1485–1489.
13.
de KleinAvan KesselAGGrosveldG. A cellular oncogene is translocated to the Philadelphia chromosome in chronic myelocytic leukaemia. Nature1982; 300: 765–767.
14.
FieldingAK. Current treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program2011; 2011: 231–237.
15.
RaelsonJVNerviCRosenauerA. The PML/RAR alpha oncoprotein is a direct molecular target of retinoic acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia cells. Blood1996; 88(8): 2826–2832.
16.
KwakELBangYJCamidgeDR. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med2010; 363: 1693–1703.
17.
LynchTJBellDWSordellaR. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med2004; 350: 2129–2139.
18.
PaezJGJannePALeeJC. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science2004; 304: 1497–1500.
19.
ChapmanPBHauschildARobertC. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med2011; 364: 2507–2516.
20.
SaifMWEzzeldinHVanceK. DPYD*2A mutation: the most common mutation associated with DPD deficiency. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol2007; 60: 503–507.
21.
KilpivaaraOMukherjeeSSchramAM. A germline JAK2 SNP is associated with predisposition to the development of JAK2(V617F)-positive myeloproliferative neoplasms. Nat Genet2009; 41: 455–459.
22.
RossCJKatzov-EckertHDubeMP. Genetic variants in TPMT and COMT are associated with hearing loss in children receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Nat Genet2009; 41: 1345–1349.
23.
DeenenMJCatsABeijnenJH. Part 1: background, methodology, and clinical adoption of pharmacogenetics. Oncologist2011; 16: 811–819.
24.
GerlingerMRowanAJHorswellS. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med2012; 366: 883–892.
25.
IyerLDasSJanischL. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a determinant of irinotecan disposition and toxicity. Pharmacogenomics J2002; 2: 43–47.
26.
DobbeEGurneyKKiekowS. Gene-expression assays: new tools to individualize treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Am J Health Syst Pharm2008; 65: 23–28.
27.
McDermottUDowningJRStrattonMR. Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. N Engl J Med2011; 364: 340–350.
28.
MandrekarSJSargentDJ. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 4027–4034.
29.
de LeonJSusceMTMurray-CarmichaelE. The AmpliChip CYP450 genotyping test: integrating a new clinical tool. Mol Diagn Ther2006; 10(3): 135–151.
30.
SawyersCL. The cancer biomarker problem. Nature2008; 452: 548–552.
NiedobitekGHerbstHCrockerJMurrayPG. In-situ hybridization in histopathology. Molecular biology in cellular pathology2003ChichesterJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd19–47.
37.
PaulettiGDandekarSRongH. Assessment of methods for tissue-based detection of the HER-2/neu alteration in human breast cancer: a direct comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol2000; 18: 3651–3664.
38.
SuiWOuMChenJ. Comparison of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assessment for Her-2 status in breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol2009; 7: 83–83.
39.
40.
WillardHFGinsburgG. Pharmacogenomics in drug development and clinical medicine: the role of regulation. Essentials of genomic and personalized medicineAcademic Press (Elsevier), 2010223–233.
41.
RellingMVKleinTE. CPIC: clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium of the pharmacogenomics research network. Clin Pharmacol Ther2011; 89: 464–467.
