Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
for nasopharyngeal cancer, patients with the XRCC1
G28152A codon 399 Arg/Gln polymorphism experi-
enced a significantly lower grade of fibrosis than
patients with the wild-type allele. The XRCC3 C18067T
codon 241 Thr/Met SNP was not associated with extent
of fibrotic response post radiotherapy in this group of
patients.
256
Considering this early evidence, future clinical trials
of radiotherapy-based treatments should routinely
incorporate a collection of genomic DNA to facilitate
the compilation of pharmacogenomic data and further
establish the significance of DNA repair gene SNPs on
clinical response to radiotherapy.
References
1. Vesell ES. Pharmacogenetic perspectives gained from twin and
family studies. Pharmacol Ther 1989;
:535
e
52.
2. Evans WE, McLeod HL. Pharmacogenomics
e
drug disposition,
drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 2003;
41
:538
e
49.
3. Lee W, Lockhart AC, Kim RB, Rothenberg ML. Cancer pharma-
cogenomics: powerful tools in cancer chemotherapy and drug
development. Oncologist 2005;
348
:104
e
11.
4. Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics: marshalling the human genome
to individualise drug therapy. Gut 2003;
10
(Suppl. 2: ii):10
e
8.
5. Efferth T, Volm M. Pharmacogenetics for individualized cancer
chemotherapy. Pharmacol Ther 2005;
52
:155
e
76.
6. Yamayoshi Y, Iida E, Tanigawara Y. Cancer pharmacogenomics:
international trends. Int J Clin Oncol 2005;
107
:5
e
13.
7. Sancar A, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Unsal-Kacmaz K, Linn S. Molecular
mechanisms of mammalian DNA repair and the DNA damage
checkpoints. Annu Rev Biochem 2004;
10
CONCLUSIONS
:39
e
85.
8. Gerson SL. MGMT: its role in cancer aetiology and cancer ther-
apeutics. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;
73
:296
e
307.
9. Dudas A, Chovanec M. DNA double-strand break repair by
homologous recombination. Mutat Res 2004;
4
DNA repair alterations in cancer have the potential to
direct personalized cancer therapy. Optimizing combi-
nations of cytotoxic agents that result in maximum
treatment benefit with minimum toxicity remains
a high priority in cancer therapeutics. In this chapter
we have provided a comprehensive summary of
evidence that confirms the role of DNA repair alter-
ations as promising predictive biomarkers in cancer. It
is clear that variations within DNA repair genes not
only contribute to therapeutic resistance in tumors,
but also impact on normal tissue tolerance to chemo-
therapy and radiotherapy. However, to date most
studies have attempted to correlate the expression of
a single or few DNA repair proteins, or a SNP or
SNPs in two or three DNA repair genes, to assess
response to treatment. Given the possibility of underes-
timating the effect of low-risk SNPs it is important that
future studies examine the combined effects of poly-
morphism variants or proteins to achieve reliable
results. Although DNA repair genetic polymorphisms
directing cancer therapy is still some time away, this
chapter has reviewed evidence providing proof of
concept to justify further studies. It is, however, impor-
tant to remember that several studies discussed here are
limited by the small patient numbers. Larger, expen-
sive, prospectively designed clinical trials are necessary
to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of pre-treat-
ment genotyping approaches to directed patient
therapy. Although prospective collection of genomic
DNA from patients enrolled in clinical trials will enable
large-scale pharmacogenetic studies, an additional
challenge will be to validate the results across different
racial and ethnic groups, as well as for each tumor type.
The evidence base is currently most matured for XRCC1
and ERCC1. A collaborative effort by academic groups
and the pharmaceutical industry will result in identifi-
cation of additional reliable markers to direct personal-
ized cancer therapy in the near future.
:131
e
67.
10. Bassing CH, Alt FW. The cellular response to general and pro-
grammed DNA double strand breaks. DNA Repair
566
(Amst)
:781
e
96.
11. Schofield MJ, Hsieh P. DNA mismatch repair: molecular mecha-
nisms
2004;
3
and
biological
function.
Annu
Rev Microbiol
:579
e
608.
12. Lees-Miller SP, Meek K. Repair of DNA double strand breaks by
non-homologous end joining. Biochimie 2003;
2003;
57
:1161
e
73.
13. Dianov GL, Sleeth KM, Dianova II , Allinson SL. Repair of abasic
sites in DNA. Mutat Res 2003;
85
:157
e
63.
14. Costa RM, Chigancas V, Galhardo Rda S, Carvalho H, Menck CF.
The eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair pathway. Biochimie
2003;
531
:1083
e
99.
15. Peltomaki P. Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the path-
ogenesis of human cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;
85
:1174
e
9.
16. Farivar AS, McCourtie AS, MacKinnon-Patterson BC, et al. Poly
(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibition improves rat cardiac allo-
graft survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;
21
:950
e
6.
17. Bouchard VJ, Rouleau M, Poirier GG. PARP-1, a determinant of
cell
80
survival
in response to DNA damage. Exp Hematol
:446
e
54.
18. Allinson SL, Dianova II . Dianov GL. Poly(ADP-ribose) poly-
merase in base excision repair: always engaged, but not essential
for DNA damage processing. Acta Biochim Pol 2003;
2003;
31
50
:169
e
79.
19. Kraus WL, Lis JT. PARP goes transcription. Cell 2003;
:677
e
83.
20. Hoeijmakers JH. Genome maintenance mechanisms for pre-
venting cancer. Nature 2001;
113
:366
e
74.
21. Brookes AJ. The essence of SNPs. Gene 1999;
411
:177
e
86.
22. Wilson 3rd DM, Bohr VA. The mechanics of base excision repair,
and its relationship to aging and disease. DNA Repair (Amst)
2007;
234
:544
e
59.
23. Almeida KH, Sobol RW. A unified view of base excision repair:
lesion-dependent protein complexes regulated by post-trans-
lational modification. DNA Repair (Amst) 2007;
6
:695
e
711.
24. D'Amours D, Desnoyers S, D'Silva I, Poirier GG. Poly(ADP-
ribosyl)ation reactions in the regulation of nuclear functions.
Biochem J 1999;
6
(Pt 2):249
e
68.
25. Chalmers AJ. The potential role and application of PARP inhib-
itors in cancer treatment. Br Med Bull 2009;
342
:23
e
40.
26. Durkacz BW, Omidiji O, Gray DA, Shall S.
89
(ADP-ribose)n
participates in DNA excision repair. Nature 1980;
283
:593
e
6.
