Genome wide association study to identify predictors for severe skin toxicity in colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab

Jara Baas, Lisanne Krens, Stefan Bohringer, Linda Mol, Cornelis Punt, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Hans Gelderblom, Jara Baas, Lisanne Krens, Stefan Bohringer, Linda Mol, Cornelis Punt, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Hans Gelderblom

Abstract

EGFR-antibodies are associated with significant skin toxicity, including acneiform rash and folliculitis. It remains impossible to predict the occurrence of severe skin toxicity due to the lack of predictive markers. Here, we present the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) to find single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity using data of the multicentre randomized phase III CAIRO2 trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00208546). In this study, advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer patients were treated with capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab. Germline DNA was available in 282 of the 368 patients in the cetuximab arm. Mild skin toxicity occurred in 195 patients (i.e. CTC grade 1 or 2, respectively 91 and 104 patients) and severe skin toxicity (i.e. grade 3) in 36 patients. Grade 4 skin toxicity did not occur. None of the SNPs reached the formal genome wide threshold for significance of 5x10(-8), though SNPs of at least 8 loci did show moderate association (p-value between 5x10(-7) and 5x10(-5)) with the occurrence of grade 3 (severe) skin toxicity. These SNPs did not overlap with SNPs associated with cetuximab efficacy as found in a previous GWAS in the same CAIRO2 cohort. If formally proven by replication, the SNPs associated with severe EGFR induced skin toxicity may be helpful to predict the occurrence and severity of skin toxicity in patients that will receive cetuximab and allow for adequate information on the risk of skin toxicity and prophylactic measurements.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Manhattan plot.
Fig 1. Manhattan plot.

References

    1. Jonker DJ, O'Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Tu D, Au HJ, et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N.Engl.J.Med. 2007; 357: 2040–8.
    1. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J.Clin.Oncol. 2007; 25: 1658–64.
    1. Baas JM, Krens LL, Guchelaar HJ, Ouwerkerk J, de Jong FA, Lavrijsen AP, et al. Recommendations on management of EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity: a systematic review. Cancer Treat.Rev. 2012; 38: 505–14.
    1. Klinghammer K, Knodler M, Schmittel A, Budach V, Keilholz U, Tinhofer I. Association of epidermal growth factor receptor polymorphism, skin toxicity, and outcome in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving cetuximab-docetaxel treatment. Clin.Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 304–10.
    1. Perea S, Oppenheimer D, Amador M, Cusati G, Baker S, Takimoto C, et al. Genotypic bases of EGFR inhibitors pharmacological actions. J.Clin.Oncol. 22[14S], Abstr. 3005. 15-7-2004.
    1. Vallbohmer D, Zhang W, Gordon M, Yang DY, Yun J, Press OA, et al. Molecular determinants of cetuximab efficacy. J.Clin.Oncol. 2005; 23: 3536–44.
    1. Wacker B, Nagrani T, Weinberg J, Witt K, Clark G, Cagnoni PJ. Correlation between development of rash and efficacy in patients treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in two large phase III studies. Clin.Cancer Res. 2007; 13: 3913–21.
    1. Harper AR, Topol EJ. Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice and drug development. Nat.Biotechnol. 2012; 30: 1117–24.
    1. Lacouture ME, Mitchell EP, Piperdi B, Pillai MV, Shearer H, Iannotti N, et al. Skin toxicity evaluation protocol with panitumumab (STEPP), a phase II, open-label, randomized trial evaluating the impact of a pre-Emptive Skin treatment regimen on skin toxicities and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J.Clin.Oncol. 2010; 28: 1351–7.
    1. Joshi SS, Ortiz S, Witherspoon JN, Rademaker A, West DP, Anderson R, et al. Effects of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced dermatologic toxicities on quality of life. Cancer 2010; 116: 3916–23.
    1. Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A, Rodenburg CJ, Creemers GJ, Schrama JG, et al. Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N.Engl.J.Med. 2009; 360: 563–72.
    1. Solomon BM, Jatoi A. Rash from EGFR inhibitors: opportunities and challenges for palliation. Curr.Oncol.Rep. 2008; 10: 304–8.
    1. Pander J, van Huis-Tanja L, Bohringer S, van der Straaten T, Gelderblom H, Punt C, et al. Genome wide association study for predictors of progression free survival in patients on capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab and cetuximab in firstl-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0131091
    1. Search Collaborative Group, Link E, Parish S, Armitage J, Bowman L, Health S, et al. SLCO1B1 variants and statin-induced myopathy—a genomewide study. N.Engl.J.Med. 2008; 359: 789–99.
    1. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 2007; 447: 661–78.
    1. Perez-Soler R, Saltz L. Cutaneous adverse effects with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents: is there a silver lining? J.Clin.Oncol. 2005; 23: 5235–46.
    1. Petrelli F, Borgonovo K, Barni S. The predictive role of skin rash with cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials. Target Oncol. 2013; 8: 173–81.
    1. Rushan X, Fei H, Zhirong M, Yu-Zhang W. Identification of proteins involved in aggregation of human dermal papilla cells by proteomics. J.Dermatol.Sci. 2007; 48: 189–97.
    1. Yin J, Jung JE, Choi SI, Kim SS, Oh YT, Kim TH, et al. Inhibition of BMP signalling overcomes acquired resistance to cetuximab in oral squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Lett 2018; 414: 181–189.
    1. Fu DY, Wang ZM, Wang BL, Chen L, Yang WT, Shen ZZ, et al. Frequent epigenetic inactivation of the receptor tyrosine kinase EphA5 by promoter methylation in human breast cancer. Hum.Pathol. 2010; 41: 48–58.
    1. Vukcevic D, Hechter E, Spencer C, Donnelly P. Disease model distortion in association studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2011; 35: 278–90

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅