Evaluating predictive pharmacogenetic signatures of adverse events in colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidines

The potential clinical utility of genetic markers associated with response to fluoropyrimidine treatment in colorectal cancer patients remains controversial despite extensive study. Our aim was to test the clinical validity of both novel and previously identified markers of adverse events in a broad clinical setting. We have conducted an observational pharmacogenetic study of early adverse events in a cohort study of 254 colorectal cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Sixteen variants of nine key folate (pharmacodynamic) and drug metabolising (pharmacokinetic) enzymes have been analysed as individual markers and/or signatures of markers. We found a significant association between TYMP S471L (rs11479) and early dose modifications and/or severe adverse events (adjusted OR = 2.02 [1.03; 4.00], p = 0.042, adjusted OR = 2.70 [1.23; 5.92], p = 0.01 respectively). There was also a significant association between these phenotypes and a signature of DPYD mutations (Adjusted OR = 3.96 [1.17; 13.33], p = 0.03, adjusted OR = 6.76 [1.99; 22.96], p = 0.002 respectively). We did not identify any significant associations between the individual candidate pharmacodynamic markers and toxicity. If a predictive test for early adverse events analysed the TYMP and DPYD variants as a signature, the sensitivity would be 45.5 %, with a positive predictive value of just 33.9 % and thus poor clinical validity. Most studies to date have been under-powered to consider multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variants simultaneously but this and similar individualised data sets could be pooled in meta-analyses to resolve uncertainties about the potential clinical utility of these markers

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients