31.05.2015 Views

NcXHF

NcXHF

NcXHF

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

GENOMICS, PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, AND SUPPORTIVE CANCER CARE<br />

FIGURE 1. Differentially Expressed Genes Defined by Signaling Functions<br />

Major roles for TNF-alpha have been suggested in pathoetiology of radiation-induced toxicities, including mucositis and fatigue. The formation of a network based on differentially<br />

expressed genes in patients who developed mucositis confirms a central role for TNF, illustrates its effect on connected nodes, and provides a potential target for pharmacologicallybased<br />

intervention. 40<br />

such as Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (Ingenuity Systems).<br />

Network analyses identify the biologic functions and canonical<br />

pathways that are most signifıcant to the genes in<br />

the network (Fig. 1). 40<br />

This methodology has been used to provide an abundance<br />

of mechanistic data to defıne regimen-related tissue injury.<br />

Canonical pathways associated with NF-kappa B signaling,<br />

Toll-like receptor signaling, P13K/AKT signaling, interleukin-6<br />

signaling, and p38 MAPK signaling are among examples that<br />

are consistent with proposed mechanisms by which toxicities,<br />

such as mucosal injury, occur. From the viewpoint of<br />

drug development, the key roles played by each pathway suggest<br />

that each is a potential therapeutic target.<br />

An analysis of canonical pathways may also provide hints<br />

to the global symptomatic response of patients to cancer<br />

therapy. For example, although overexpression of genes<br />

within the glutamate signaling pathway has been associated<br />

with central nervous system activity, recent analyses suggest<br />

broadened activity, including a role as a signal mediator. 23<br />

This conclusion has implications in drug development and<br />

might favor and inform formulation and/or route of administration<br />

strategies.<br />

The fact that genetics can play a key role in determining a patient’s<br />

response to a drug creates opportunities for both expediting<br />

drug development and individualizing care. By identifying a<br />

genetic signature that differentiates the likelihood of response or<br />

nonresponse to a drug, developers would have the ability to enrich<br />

clinical trials with groups of patients who were most likely<br />

to benefıt, and, at the same time, spare genetically-defıned nonresponders<br />

from the risks and inconvenience of receiving an experimental<br />

agent. Once approved, compounds that effectively<br />

mitigated regimen-related toxicities could be selectively administered<br />

to the most appropriate patients, favorably affecting the<br />

physiological and fınancial costs of treating nonresponders.<br />

ECONOMIC, POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND<br />

CHALLENGES FOR THE APPLICATION OF GENOMICS<br />

TO SUPPORTIVE CANCER CARE<br />

For a clinical genomics test to achieve acceptability by patients,<br />

clinicians, payers, and regulators, it has to successfully answer<br />

two questions: Does it work and is it worth the cost? 41 How to<br />

answer the fırst question has been a topic addressed in a variety<br />

of forums. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention<br />

launched the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice<br />

and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative. The group defıned four<br />

evaluation criteria: analytic validity (how well does the test measure<br />

what it is supposed to measure); clinical validity (how well<br />

does the test predict its specifıed outcome); clinical utility (how<br />

well does the test improve or harm outcomes to patients); and<br />

ethical, legal, and social issues. 42<br />

In general, the effıcacy of genomic tests as toxicity-risk predictors<br />

using the validity criteria cited above requires data drawn<br />

from large populations of patients. As noted earlier in this article,<br />

results of studies using either candidate gene or GWAS approaches<br />

have been notoriously diffıcult to replicate, and, in the<br />

case of GWAS, prone to false-positive signals. Fortunately new<br />

big data methods and the integration of multifaceted analytics<br />

provide a platform from which genomic parameters with toxicity<br />

risk can be determined. Based on past experiences, such studies<br />

likely will be most effective if they are prospective and if they<br />

provide a strict template for the capture of accurate toxicity data.<br />

asco.org/edbook | 2015 ASCO EDUCATIONAL BOOK 13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!