Integration of molecular diagnostics with therapeutics: implications for drug discovery and patient care

References

• Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J. Chn. Oncol. 20,719-726 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• O'Dwyer ME, Druker BJ. STI571: an inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Lancet Onca 1, 207–211 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keesee SK. Molecular diagnostics: impact upon cancer detection. Expert Rev. Mot Diagn. 2,91–92 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poste G. Molecular diagnostics: a powerful new component of the healthcare value chain. Expert Rev. MoZ Diagn. 1,1–5 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leonard DG. The present and future of molecular diagnostics. Mot Diagn. (1)6, 71–72 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• AMOS J, Patnaik M. Commercial molecular diagnostics in the US: the Human Genome Project to the clinical laboratory. Hum. Mutat. 19,324-333 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Bottles K. A revolution in genetics: changing medicine, changing lives. Physician Exec. 27, 58–63 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• AdvanceTech Monitor (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bordet R, Gautier S, Le Louet H, Dupuis B, Caron J. Analysis of the direct cost of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients. Eur. j Clin. Pharmacot 56, 935–941 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Suh DC, Woodall BS, Shin SK, Hermes-De Santis ER Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 34,1373-1379 (2000). iidu Souich P. In human therapy, is the drug— drug interaction or the adverse drug reaction the issue?" Chn. Pharmacot 8, 153–161 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg GS, McCarthy JJ. Personalized medicine: revolutionizing drug discovery and patient care. Trends BiotechnoZ 19, 491–496 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross JS, Fletcher JA. The HER-2/neu Oncogene in breast cancer: prognostic factor, predictive factor and target for therapy. Oncologist 3,237–252 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan GJ, Pratt G. Modem molecular diagnostics and the management of haematological malignancies. Chn. Lab. Haematot 20,135–141 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zareba W Moss AJ, Schwartz PJ et al. Influence of genotype on clinical course of the long-QT syndrome. N Engl. J. Med. 339,960–965 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shimizu W, Antzelevitch C. Sodium channel block with mexiletine is effective in reducing dispersion of repolarization and preventing torsade de pointes in LQT2 as well as LQT3 models of the long-QT syndrome. Circulation 96,2038–2047 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz PJ, Priori SG, Locati EH et aZ Long QT syndrome patients with mutations of the SCN5A and HERG genes have differential responses to Na+ channel blockade and to increases in heart rate: Implications for gene-specific therapy. Circulation 92,3381-3386 (1995)•
   Google Scholar
• Jordan VC. Progress in the prevention of breast cancer: concept to reality. J. Steroid Biochem. Mot Biol. 74,269–277 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doren M, Samsioe G. Prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis with oestrogen replacement therapy and associated compounds: update on clinical trials since 1995. Hum. Reprod. Update 6, 419–426 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Crouch MA. Effective use of statins to prevent coronary heart disease. Am. Fam. Physician 63,309–320 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor JG, Choi EH, Foster CB, Chanock SJ. Using genetic variation to study human disease. Trend s Mot Med 7,507–512 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson CS, Newman TL, Nickerson DA. SNPing in the human genome. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5,78–85 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin TJ, Smith LM. Single-nucleotide polymorphism analysis by MALDI TOF mass spectrometry. Trends Biotechnot 18, 77–84 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallioniemi OP. Biochip technologies in cancer research. Ann. Med. 33,142–147 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Overview of high-throughputmicroarrays and their potential clinical applications.
   Google Scholar
• Relling MV, Dervieux T Pharmacogenetics and cancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 1, 99–108 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Reviews the use of SNP detection andcancer therapy selection.
   Google Scholar
• Borg A. Molecular and pathological characterization of inherited breast cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol. 11, 375–385 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renegar G, Rieser P, Manasco P. Pharmacogenetics: the Rx perspective. Expert Rev. Mot Diagn. 1, 255–263 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Jass JR Familial colorectal cancer: pathology and molecular characteristics. Lancet Oncot 1,220–226 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weber W, Estoppey J, Stoll H. Familial cancer diagnosis. Anticancer Res. 21,3631–3635 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calzone KA, Biesecker BB. Genetic testing for cancer predisposition. Cancer Nurs. 25, 15–25 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingelman-Sundberg M. Genetic susceptibility to adverse effects of drugs and environmental toxicants. The role of the GYP family of enzymes. Mutat. Res. 482, 11–19 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ingelman-Sundberg M. Pharmacogenetics: an opportunity for a safer and more efficient pharmacotherapy." Intern. Med 250,186–200 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Steimer W, Potter JM. Pharmacogenetic screening and therapeutic drugs. Clin. Chim. Acta. 315, 137–155 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roses AD. Pharmacogenetics. Hum. Mot Genet. 10,2261–2267 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••Thorough review of SNP testing andpredicting drug toxicity.
   Google Scholar
• Diasio RB, Johnson MR The role of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in cancer chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. Pharmacology 61,199–203 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Relling MV, Dervieux T. Pharmacogenetics and cancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 1, 99–108 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linder MW Valdes R Jr. Genetic mechanisms for variability in drug response and toxicity .j Anat Toxicot 25,405–413 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Danesi R, De Braud F, Fogli S, Di Paolo A, Del Tacca M. Pharmacogenetic determinants of anticancer drug activity and toxicity. Trends Pharmacot Sci. 22, 420–426 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullarkat ST, Stoehlmacher J, Ghaderi V et al. Thymidylate synthase gene polymorphism determines response and toxicity of 5-FU chemotherapy. Pharmacogenomics J. 1, 65–70 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durant J, Clevenbergh P Halfon P et al. Drug resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRADAPT randomised controlled trial. Lancet 353,2195–2199 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Rusnak JM, Kisabeth RM, Herbert DR McNeil DM. Pharmacogenomics: a clinician's primer on emerging technologies for improved patient care. Mayo Clin. Proc. 76,299-309 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hess R Cooper D. Impact of pharmacogenomics on the clinical laboratory. Mot Diagn. 4,289-298 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Harkin DP. Uncovering functionally relevant signaling pathways using microarray based expression profiling. Oncologist 5, 501–507 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snijders AM, Meijer GA, Brakenhoff RI-I, van den Brule AJ, van Diest PJ. Microarray techniques in pathology: tool or toy? Mot Pathot 53,289–294 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raetz EA, Moos PJ, Szabo A, Carroll WL. Gene expression profiling. Methods and clinical applications in oncology. Hematot Oncot Clin. North Am. 15,911–930 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyak K, Ri...ns GJ. Gene discovery using the serial analysis of gene expression technique: implications for cancer research. Clin. Oncol. 19,2948–2958 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lewis F, Maughan NJ, Smith V, Hillan K, Quirke P. Unlocking the archive gene expression in paraffin-embedded tissue.' Pathot 195,66–71 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Maughan NJ, Lewis FA, Smith V An introduction to arrays.' Pathot 195,3–6 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Reviews the different types of microarrays.
   Google Scholar
• Alizadeh AA, Ross DT, Perou CM, van de Rijn M. Towards a novel classification of human malignancies based on gene expression patterns.' Pathot 195,41–52 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ramaswamy S, Golub TR DNA microarrays in clinical oncology. J. Clin. Oncot 20,1932–1941 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Considers the impact of tumor classification by gene expression profiling. SiSchena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science 270,467-470 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Zanders ED. Gene expression analysis as an aid to the identification of drug targets. Pharmacogenomics 1, 375–384 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••How companies are using transcriptionalprofiling to detect new drug targets.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein JN. Pharmacogenomics — teaching old drugs new tricks. N Engt Med. 343,1408–1409 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Basic primer on pharmacogenomics.
   Google Scholar
• Diasio RB, Johnson MR The role of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in cancer chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. Pharmacology 61,199–203 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Los G, Yang F, Sarnimi G et al. Using mRNA expression profiling to determine anticancer drug efficacy. Cytometry 47,66–71 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slonim DK Transcriptional profiling in cancer: the path to clinical pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics 2, 123–136 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dougherty ER, Barrera J, Brun M et al. Inference from clustering with application to gene-expression microarrays. j Comput. Biol. 105–126 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Fryer RM, Randall J, Yoshida T et al. Global analysis of gene expression: methods, interpretation and pitfalls. E. Nephrot 10,64–74 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lightcap ES, McCormack TA, Pien CS, Chau V, Adams J, Elliott PJ. Proteasome inhibition measurements: clinical application. Clin. Chem. 46,673–683 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams J. Development of the proteasome inhibitor PS-341. Oncologist 7, 9–16 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •The proteasome inhibitor PS-341 shows significant promise for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott PJ, Ross JS. The proteasome: a new target for novel drug therapies. Am. J Clin. Pathol. 116, 637–646 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albanell J, Rojo F, Averbuch S et al. Pharmacodynamic studies of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor ZD1839 in skin from cancer patients: histopathologic and molecular consequences of receptor inhibition./ Clin. Oncd 20, 110–124 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Hamadeh HK, Bushel P, Paules R, Afshari CA. Discovery in toxicology: mediation by gene expression array technology J. Biochem. Mot Toxicol. 15, 231–242 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielden MR, Zacharewski TR Challenges and limitations of gene expression profiling in mechanistic and predictive toxicology Toxica Sci. 60, 6–10 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Burchiel SW Knall CM, Davis JW 2nd, Paules RS, Boggs SE, Afshari CA. Analysis of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of toxicity: potential roles of andcogenomics and proteomics in toxicology Toxicot Sci. 59, 193–195 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hamadeh HK, Amin W, Paules RS, Afshari CA. An overview of todcogenomics. Curn Issues MoL Bid 4, 45–56 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitcheson JS, Chen J, Lin M, Culberson C, Sanguinetti MC. A structural basis for drug-induced long QT syndrome. Proc. 1Vatl Acad Sci. USA 97, 12329–12333 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et d Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for Metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N EngZ Med. 344, 783–792 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Original Herceptin clinical trial story.
   Google Scholar
• Lohrisch C, Piccart M. HER2/neu as a predictive factor in breast cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 2, 129–135 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Druker BJ. 5TI571 (Gleevec) as a paradigm for cancer therapy. Trends MoL Med 8, S14–8 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Most recently approved anticancer targeted therapy.
   Google Scholar
• Joensuu H. Treatment of inoperable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with Imatinib (Glivec, Gleevec). Med. Klin. 97 (Suppl.) 1, 28–30 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Baselga J. Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: small molecules, big hopes. J Clin. Oncd 20, 2217–2219 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox SB, Gasparini G, Harris AL. Angiogenesis: pathological, prognostic and growth-factor pathways and their link to trial design and anticancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2, 278–289 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbst RS, Langer CJ. Epidermal growth factor receptors as a target for cancer treatment: the emerging role of IMG C225 in the treatment of lung and head and neck cancers. Semin. Oncol. 29, 27–36 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• McDevitt MR, Barendswaard E, Ma D et al. An a-particle emitting antibody ([213BI]J591) for radioimmunotherapy of prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 60, 6095–6100 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sievers EL, Linenberger M. Mylotarg: antibody-targeted chemotherapy comes of age. Curn Opin. Oncol. 13, 522–527(2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piecyk M, Anderson P. Signal transduction in rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 15, 789–803 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williamson AA, McColl GJ. Early rheumatoid arthritis: can we predict its outcome? Intern. Med. 31, 168–180 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Watts DA, Satsangi J. The genetic jigsaw of inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 50\(Supp1.3), 31–36 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Satsangi J. Genetics of inflammatory bowel disease: from bench to bedside? Acta Odontol. Scand 59, 187–192 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Patel VB, Robbins MA, Topol EJ. C-reactive protein: a 'golden marker' for inflammation and coronary artery disease. Cleveland Clin. J Med 68, 521–524 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Feinstein SB, Voci P, Pizzuto E Noninvasive surrogate markers of atherosclerosis. Am. J Cardid 89(5A), 31C-43C (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Stein E. Laboratory surrogates for anti- atherosclerotic drug development. Am. J Cardid 87(4A), 21A-26A (2001).
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy MI, Hattersley AT. Molecular diagnostics in monogenic and multifactorial forms of Type 2 diabetes. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 1, 403–412 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Berger A, Preiser W Viral genome quantification as a tool for improving patient management: the example of HIV, HBV, HCV and CMV. Antimicrob. Chemother. 49, 713–721 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Vandamme AM, Houyez F, Banhegyi D et al. Laboratory guidelines for the practical use of HIV drug resistance tests in patient follow-up. Antivir. Then 6, 21–39 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buss N, Cammack N. Measuring the effectiveness of antiretroviral agents. Antivir. Then 6, 1–7 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Retroviral therapy monitoring remains the most frequently utilized molecular diagnostic test yet discovered.
   Google Scholar
• Russo A, Zanna I, Tubiolo C et al. Hereditary common cancers: molecular and clinical genetics. Anticancer Res. 20, 4841–4851 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• von Knebel Doeberitz M. New molecular tools for efficient screening of cervical cancer. Dis. Markers 17, 123–128 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross JS. Economic, regulatory and practice issues in molecular pathology and diagnostics. Am. J Clin. Pathol. 112\(Supp1.1), S7-10 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Sakallah SA. Molecular diagnostics of infectious diseases: state of the technology. Biotechnot Ann. Rev. 6, 141–161 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pang CP. Molecular diagnostics for cardiovascular disease. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 36, 605–614 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lacroix J, Doeberitz MK. Technical aspects of minimal residual disease detection in carcinoma patients. Semin. Surg. Oncol. 20, 252–264 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan GJ, Pratt G. Modern molecular diagnostics and the management of haematological malignancies. Clin. Lab. Haematot 20, 135–141 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jain KK Applications of proteomics in oncology. PharrnAcogenomics 1, 385–393 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lee KH. Proteomics: a technology-driven and technology-limited discovery science. Trends Biotechnd 19, 217–222 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herrmann PC, Liotta LA, Petricoin EF 3rd. Cancer proteomics: the state of the art. Dis. Markers 17, 49–57 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Srinivas PR, Srivastava S, Hanash S, Wright GL Jr. Proteomics in early detection of cancer. Clin. Chem. 47, 1901–1911 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Petricoin EF, Ardekani AM, Hitt BA et al. Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 359, 572–577 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •SELDI barcode proteomics detects 100% of Stage I ovarian cancer. If validated, this technique could 'revolutionize' molecular diagnostics.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps ME PET: the merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging.' Nucl. Med. 41, 661–681 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar