Complete DPYD genotyping combined with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping to prevent fluoropyrimidine toxicity: A retrospective study.

Côme De Metz, Benjamin Hennart, Estelle Aymes, Pierre-Yves Cren, Niels Martignène, Nicolas Penel, Maël Barthoulot, Aurélien Carnot
Author Information
  1. Côme De Metz: Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France. ORCID
  2. Benjamin Hennart: Toxicology Unit, Biology and Pathology Centre, Lille University Medical Centre, Lille, France. ORCID
  3. Estelle Aymes: Department of Biostatistics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
  4. Pierre-Yves Cren: Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
  5. Niels Martignène: Department of Biostatistics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
  6. Nicolas Penel: Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France. ORCID
  7. Maël Barthoulot: Department of Biostatistics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
  8. Aurélien Carnot: Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France. ORCID

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In April 2019, French authorities mandated dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) screening, specifically testing uracilemia, to mitigate the risk of toxicity associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. However, this subject is still of debate as there is no consensus on a standardized DPD deficiency screening test. We conducted a real-life retrospective study with the aim of assessing the impact of DPD screening on the occurrence of severe toxicity and exploring the potential benefits of complete genotyping using next-generation sequencing.
METHODS: All adult patients consecutively treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or its oral prodrug at six cancer centers between March 2018 and February 2019 were considered for inclusion. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening included gene encoding DPD (DPYD) genotyping using complete genome sequencing and DPD phenotyping (uracilemia or dihydrouracilemia/uracilemia ratio) or both tests. Associations between each DPD screening method and (i) severe (grade ≥3) early toxicity and (ii) fluoropyrimidine dose reduction in the second chemotherapy cycle were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Furthermore, we assessed the concordance between DPD genotype and phenotype using Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: A total of 551 patients were included. Most patients were tested for DPD deficiency (86%) including DPYD genotyping only (6%), DPD phenotyping only (8%), or both (72%). Complete DPD deficiency was not detected in the study population. Severe early toxicity events were observed in 73 patients (13%), with two patients (0.30%) presenting grade 5 toxicity. Despite the numerically higher toxicity rate in untested patients, the occurrence of severe toxicity was not significantly associated with the DPD screening method (p = 0.69). Concordance between the DPD genotype and phenotype was weak (Cohen's kappa of 0.14).
CONCLUSION: Due to insufficient numbers, our study was not able to demonstrate any added value of DPYD genotyping using complete genome sequencing to prevent 5-FU toxicity. The optimal strategy for DPD screening before fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy requires further clinical evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2017 May 8;12(5):e0175998 [PMID: 28481884]
  2. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 May;89(5):662-73 [PMID: 21412232]
  3. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Nov 11;23(22): [PMID: 36430399]
  4. Br J Cancer. 2017 May 23;116(11):1415-1424 [PMID: 28427087]
  5. Cancer Res. 2014 May 1;74(9):2545-54 [PMID: 24648345]
  6. Pharmacogenomics. 2013 Aug;14(11):1255-72 [PMID: 23930673]
  7. Pharmacogenomics. 2023 Jan;24(2):93-106 [PMID: 36636997]
  8. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15;11(16):5886-92 [PMID: 16115930]
  9. Br J Cancer. 2020 Sep;123(5):811-818 [PMID: 32595208]
  10. Br J Cancer. 2019 Apr;120(8):834-839 [PMID: 30858516]
  11. ESMO Open. 2021 Jun;6(3):100125 [PMID: 33895696]
  12. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1459-1467 [PMID: 30348537]
  13. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Feb;89(2):762-772 [PMID: 36104927]
  14. Cancer Med. 2024 Mar;13(6):e7066 [PMID: 38523525]
  15. Clin Transl Sci. 2020 Jul;13(4):761-768 [PMID: 32058656]
  16. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022 Jul;112(1):62-68 [PMID: 35397172]
  17. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2023 Jan 10;15:17588359221148536 [PMID: 36643657]
  18. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 1997 Aug 29;696(2):183-91 [PMID: 9323539]
  19. Br J Cancer. 2017 Oct 24;117(9):1269-1277 [PMID: 29065426]
  20. Lakartidningen. 2021 Aug 10;118: [PMID: 34498246]
  21. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1639-50 [PMID: 26603945]
  22. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Oct;104(4):709-718 [PMID: 29327356]
  23. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Nov;16(11):3537-41 [PMID: 9817272]
  24. Pharmaceutics. 2022 Oct 06;14(10): [PMID: 36297556]
  25. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1989 Apr;16(4):215-37 [PMID: 2656050]

MeSH Term

Adult
Humans
Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)
Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
Retrospective Studies
Capecitabine
Genotype
Fluorouracil

Chemicals

Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
Capecitabine
Fluorouracil

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DPDtoxicityscreeningpatientsgenotypingusingdeficiencystudysequencingDPYDdehydrogenasechemotherapyseverecompletephenotypinggenotypephenotype2019dihydropyrimidineuracilemiaassociatedfluoropyrimidine-basedretrospectiveoccurrence5-FUincludedgenomemethodearlyfluoropyrimidineCohen'skappaComplete0preventINTRODUCTION:AprilFrenchauthoritiesmandatedspecificallytestingmitigateriskHoweversubjectstilldebateconsensusstandardizedtestconductedreal-lifeaimassessingimpactexploringpotentialbenefitsnext-generationMETHODS:adultconsecutivelytreated5-fluorouraciloralprodrugsixcancercentersMarch2018FebruaryconsideredinclusionDihydropyrimidinegeneencodingdihydrouracilemia/uracilemiaratiotestsAssociationsgrade ≥3iidosereductionsecondcycleevaluatedmultivariablelogisticregressionanalysisFurthermoreassessedconcordanceRESULTS:total551tested86%including6%8%72%detectedpopulationSevereeventsobserved7313%two30%presentinggrade5Despitenumericallyhigherrateuntestedsignificantlyp = 069Concordanceweak14CONCLUSION:Dueinsufficientnumbersabledemonstrateaddedvalueoptimalstrategyrequiresclinicalevaluationcombinedtoxicity:capecitabinefluorouracilhigh‐throughputnucleotideneoplasms

Similar Articles

Cited By