Weekly Paclitaxel plus Capecitabine versus Docetaxel Every 3 Weeks plus Capecitabine in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Background. We performed a randomized phase II study comparing efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (Weetax) with three weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (Threetax), both in combination with oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks followed by a 1-week break. Patients. Thirty-seven women with confirmed metastatic breast cancer were randomized. Results. Median TTF was 174 (Weetax) versus 147 days (Threetax) (=0.472). Median OS was 933 (Weetax) versus 464 days (Threetax) (=0.191). Reasons for TTF were PD 8/18 (Weetax), 9/19 (Threetax); and toxicity: 8/18 (Weetax), 8/19 (Threetax). ORR was 72% (Weetax) versus 26% (Threetax) (=0.01). The Threetax-combination resulted in a higher incidence of leuco-/neutropenia compared to Weetax. Grade II anemia was more pronounced in the Weetax group. No difference was found in quality of life. Conclusion. Taxanes in combination with capecitabine resulted in a high level of toxicity. Taxanes and capecitabine should be considered given sequentially and not in combination

Predictive and Prognostic Impact of TP53 Mutations and MDM2 Promoter Genotype in Primary Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Epirubicin or Paclitaxel

Background: TP53 mutations have been associated with resistance to anthracyclines but not to taxanes in breast cancer patients. The MDM2 promoter single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) T309G increases MDM2 activity and may reduce wildtype p53 protein activity. Here, we explored the predictive and prognostic value of TP53 and CHEK2 mutation status together with MDM2 SNP309 genotype in stage III breast cancer patients receiving paclitaxel or epirubicin monotherapy. Experimental Design: Each patient was randomly assigned to treatment with epirubicin 90 mg/m2 (n= 109) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (n = 114) every 3rd week as monotherapy for 4–6 cycles. Patients obtaining a suboptimal response on first-line treatment requiring further chemotherapy received the opposite regimen. Time from last patient inclusion to follow-up censoring was 69 months. Each patient had snap-frozen tumor tissue specimens collected prior to commencing chemotherapy. Principal Findings: While TP53 and CHEK2 mutations predicted resistance to epirubicin, MDM2 status did not. Neither TP53/ CHEK2 mutations nor MDM2 status was associated with paclitaxel response. Remarkably, TP53 mutations (p = 0.007) but also MDM2 309TG/GG genotype status (p = 0.012) were associated with a poor disease-specific survival among patients having paclitaxel but not patients having epirubicin first-line. The effect of MDM2 status was observed among individuals harbouring wild-type TP53 (p = 0.039) but not among individuals with TP53 mutated tumors (p.0.5). Conclusion: TP53 and CHEK2 mutations were associated with lack of response to epirubicin monotherapy. In contrast, TP53 mutations and MDM2 309G allele status conferred poor disease-specific survival among patients treated with primary paclitaxel but not epirubicin monotherapy

MDM2 Promoter SNP344T>A (rs1196333) Status Does Not Affect Cancer Risk

The MDM2 proto-oncogene plays a key role in central cellular processes like growth control and apoptosis, and the gene locus is frequently amplified in sarcomas. Two polymorphisms located in the MDM2 promoter P2 have been shown to affect cancer risk. One of these polymorphisms (SNP309T>G; rs2279744) facilitates Sp1 transcription factor binding to the promoter and is associated with increased cancer risk. In contrast, SNP285G>C (rs117039649), located 24 bp upstream of rs2279744, and in complete linkage disequilibrium with the SNP309G allele, reduces Sp1 recruitment and lowers cancer risk. Thus, fine tuning of MDM2 expression has proven to be of significant importance with respect to tumorigenesis. We assessed the potential functional effects of a third MDM2 promoter P2 polymorphism (SNP344T>A; rs1196333) located on the SNP309T allele. While in silico analyses indicated SNP344A to modulate TFAP2A, SPIB and AP1 transcription factor binding, we found no effect of SNP344 status on MDM2 expression levels. Assessing the frequency of SNP344A in healthy Caucasians (n = 2,954) and patients suffering from ovarian (n = 1,927), breast (n = 1,271), endometrial (n = 895) or prostatic cancer (n = 641), we detected no significant difference in the distribution of this polymorphism between any of these cancer forms and healthy controls (6.1% in healthy controls, and 4.9%, 5.0%, 5.4% and 7.2% in the cancer groups, respectively). In conclusion, our findings provide no evidence indicating that SNP344A may affect MDM2 transcription or cancer risk

SNP344 and mdm2 expression.

<p>Box-plots representing log transformed relative levels of total MDM2 mRNA (<b>A</b>) and promoter P2 specific mRNA (<b>B</b>) in individuals harbouring the SNP344TT genotype versus the TA and AA genotypes.</p

Distribution of SNP344 genotypes in cancer patients and healthy controls, restricted to individuals carrying the SNP309T-allele.

<p>Distribution of SNP344 genotypes in cancer patients and healthy controls, restricted to individuals carrying the SNP309T-allele.</p

Effect of SNP344 status on transcription factor binding to MDM2 promoter P2.

<p>Effect of SNP344 status on transcription factor binding to MDM2 promoter P2.</p

Distribution of SNP344 genotypes in cancer patients and healthy controls.

<p>Distribution of SNP344 genotypes in cancer patients and healthy controls.</p

Impact of SNP344A on cancer risk.

<p>Forrest plot showing the effect of SNP344A on risk of ovarian, breast, endometrial and prostatic cancer, as compared to healthy controls, among individuals harbouring the SNP309TG genotype (A), the SNP309TT genotype (B) and the TG and TT genotypes combined (C).</p