4.7 Article

Biomarker analysis in a phase III study of pemetrexed-carboplatin versus etoposide-carboplatin in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages 1723-1729

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr563

Keywords

biomarkers; carboplatin; etoposide; pemetrexed; small-cell lung cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein. Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n = 395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, gamma-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-alpha FR-alpha, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n = 611). None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P = 0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P= 0.036). Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available