Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Phenotype Research Articles

Evaluation of chemotherapy toxicities in patients receiving treatment for gastrointestinal cancers and therapeutic monitoring of 5-fluorouracil as a clinical support tool.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is essential in treating gastrointestinal cancers, but some patients show severe toxicity. The toxicity is exposure-related, which is linked to the enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) decoded by the DPYD gene. This study aimed to evaluate the possible toxicity related to 5-FU plasma levels, DPYD genotyping, and DPD phenotyping. Forty-seven gastrointestinal cancer patients receiving 5-FU were included in this study. 5-FU plasma levels and DPD phenotyping were analyzed by UPLC-MS/MS. DPYD genotyping was also assessed. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was used to classify the toxicity. For hematological toxicity, 27.65% showed neutropenia, 78.72% anemia, and 29.78% thrombocytopenia. The area under the curve (AUC) of 5-FU calculated from the plasma was evaluated for three treatment cycles, and we observed that at the initial cycle, 48.93% were underexposed and 10.63% were overexposed, with a total of 59.56% of patients outside the therapeutic range. In the DPYD genotyping, 97.87% of patients had a wild-type genotype, and 2.12% had c.1236G>A mutation (E412E, rs56038477). A total of 82.97% of patients showed a phenotype compatible with normal DPD activity. These findings suggest that the evaluation of DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping in the Brazilian population still requires further study. Moreover, the analysis of the plasma AUC of 5-FU could contribute to clinical routine, being a very useful tool, especially for identifying patients outside the therapeutic range and thus guiding more individualized doses, or even in the intervention of possible toxicities related to overexposure.

Partial protein binding of uracil and thymine affects accurate dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotyping

Fluorouracil is among the most used antimetabolite drugs for the chemotherapeutic treatment of various types of gastrointestinal malignancies. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) genotyping prior to fluorouracil treatment is considered standard practice in most European countries. Yet, current pre-therapeutic DPYD genotyping procedures do not identify all dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD)-deficient patients. Alternatively, DPD activity can be estimated by determining the DPD phenotype by quantification of plasma concentrations of the endogenous uracil and thymine concentrations and their respective metabolites dihydrouracil (DHU) and dihydrothymine (DHT). Liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry (LC-MS) detection is currently considered as the most adequate method for quantification of low-molecular weight molecules, although the sample preparation method is highly critical for analytical outcome. It was hypothesized that during protein precipitation, the recovery of the molecule of interest highly depends on the choice of precipitation agent and the extent of protein binding in plasma. In this work, the effect of protein precipitation using acetonitrile (ACN) compared to strong acid perchloric acid (PCA) on the recovery of uracil, thymine, DHU and DHT is demonstrated. Upon the analysis of plasma samples, PCA precipitation showed higher concentrations of uracil and thymine as compared to ACN precipitation. Using ultrafiltration, it was shown that uracil and thymine are significantly (60–65 %) bound to proteins compared to DHU and DHT. This shows that before harmonized cut-off levels of DPD phenotyping can be applied in clinical practice, the analytical methodology requires extensive further optimization.

Can we identify patients carrying targeted deleterious DPYD variants with plasma uracil and dihydrouracil? A GPCO-RNPGx retrospective analysis.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main cause of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicities. The best strategy for identifying DPD-deficient patients is still not defined. The EMA recommends targeted DPYD genotyping or uracilemia (U)testing. We analyzed the concordance between both approaches. This study included 19,376 consecutive French patients with pre-treatment plasma U, UH2 and targeted DPYD genotyping (*2A, *13, D949V, *7) analyzed at Eurofins Biomnis (2015-2022). Mean U was 9.9±10.1 ng/mL (median 8.7, range 1.6-856). According to French recommendations, 7.3 % of patients were partially deficient (U 16-150 ng/mL) and 0.02 % completely deficient (U≥150 ng/mL). DPYD variant frequencies were *2A: 0.83 %, *13: 0.17 %, D949V: 1.16 %, *7: 0.05 % (2 homozygous patients with U at 22 and 856 ng/mL). Variant carriers exhibited higher U (median 13.8 vs. 8.6 ng/mL), and lower UH2/U (median 7.2 vs. 11.8) and UH2/U2 (median 0.54 vs. 1.37) relative to wild-type patients (p<0.00001). Sixty-six% of variant carriers exhibited uracilemia <16 ng/mL, challenging correct identification of DPD deficiency based on U. The sensitivity (% patients with a deficient phenotype among variant carriers) of U threshold at 16 ng/mL was 34 %. The best discriminant marker for identifying variant carriers was UH2/U2. UH2/U2<0.942 (29.7 % of patients) showed enhanced sensitivity (81 %) in identifying deleterious genotypes across different variants compared to 16 ng/mL U. These results reaffirm the poor concordance between DPD phenotyping and genotyping, suggesting that both approaches may be complementary and that targeted DPYD genotyping is not sufficiently reliable to identify all patients with complete deficiency.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping by LC-MS/MS determination of uracil in human plasma

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping by LC-MS/MS determination of uracil in human plasma

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Impact of renal impairment on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotyping

The chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is catabolized by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the deficiency of which may lead to severe toxicity or death. Since 2019, DPD deficiency testing, based on uracilemia, is mandatory in France and recommended in Europe before initiating fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. However, it has been recently shown that renal impairment may impact uracil concentration and thus DPD phenotyping. The impact of renal function on uracilemia and DPD phenotype was studied on 3039 samples obtained from three French centers. We also explored the influence of dialysis and measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) on both parameters. Finally, using patients as their own controls, we assessed as to what extent modifications in renal function impacted uracilemia and DPD phenotyping. We observed that uracilemia and DPD-deficient phenotypes increased concomitantly to the severity of renal impairment based on the estimated GFR, independently and more critically than hepatic function. This observation was confirmed with the mGFR. The risk of being classified 'DPD deficient' based on uracilemia was statistically higher in patients with renal impairment or dialyzed if uracilemia was measured before dialysis but not after. Indeed, the rate of DPD deficiency decreased from 86.4% before dialysis to 13.7% after. Moreover, for patients with transient renal impairment, the rate of DPD deficiency dropped dramatically from 83.3% to 16.7% when patients restored their renal function, especially in patients with an uracilemia close to 16 ng/ml. DPD deficiency testing using uracilemia could be misleading in patients with renal impairment. When possible, uracilemia should be reassessed in case of transient renal impairment. For patients under dialysis, testing of DPD deficiency should be carried out on samples taken after dialysis. Hence, 5-FU therapeutic drug monitoring would be particularly helpful to guide dose adjustments in patients with elevated uracil and renal impairment.

Discrepancies between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping and genotyping: What are the explanatory factors?

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency can be detected by phenotyping (measurement of plasma uracil [U], with U ≥ 16 μg/L defining a partial deficiency) and/or by genotyping (screening for the four most frequent DPYD variants). We aimed to determine the proportion of discrepancies between phenotypic and genotypic approaches and to identify possible explanatory factors. Data from patients who underwent both phenotyping and genotyping were retrospectively collected. Complementary genetic analyses (genotyping of the variant c.557A>G and DPYD sequencing) were performed for patients with U ≥ 16 μg/L without any common variants. The characteristics of patients classified according to the congruence of the phenotyping and genotyping approaches were compared (Kruskal-Wallis test), and determinants of U levels were studied in the whole cohort (linear model). Among the 712 included patients, phenotyping and genotyping were discordant for 12.5%, with 63 (8.8%) having U ≥ 16 μg/L in the absence of a common variant. Complementary genetic investigations marginally reduced the percentage of discrepancies to 12.1%: Among the nine additional identified variants, only the c.557A>G variant, carried by three patients, had been previously reported to be associated with DPD deficiency. Liver dysfunction could explain certain discordances, as ASAT, ALP, GGT and bilirubin levels were significantly elevated, with more frequent liver metastases in patients with U ≥ 16 μg/L and the absence of a DPYD variant. The impact of cytolysis was confirmed, as ASAT levels were independently associated with increased U (p < 0.001). The frequent discordances between DPD phenotyping and genotyping approaches highlight the need to perform these two approaches to screen for all DPD deficiencies.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping can estimate risk of fluoropyrimidine adverse events

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping can estimate risk of fluoropyrimidine adverse events

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotype in peripheral blood mononuclear cells is related to adverse events of fluoropyrimidine-therapy.

The primary objective of this study was to determine if dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) is related to adverse events during fluoropyrimidine therapy. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The study population included 481 patients who received fluoropyrimidine treatment and for whom relevant patient characteristics were known and adverse events were noted in the electronic health records. Factors besides DPD phenotype that could affect the incidence of adverse events were corrected for using log regression. These log regression models were used to identify an association between the DPD phenotype measured in PBMCs and adverse events. Patients with a decreased DPD activity measured in PBMCs suffered more adverse events. Results from log regression data show that this effect remains significant after correcting for dosage, chemotherapy regimen and relevant patient characteristics. A significant correlation was found between reduced DPD enzyme activity in PBMCs and adverse events. The findings in this paper support further exploring DPD phenotyping as a method for preventing fluoropyrimidine-related adverse events. Further assessment of DPD phenotyping will require clinical validation in a prospective study.

Implementation and clinical benefit of DPYD genotyping in a Danish cancer population

In 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended testing patients for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency before systemic treatment with fluoropyrimidines (FP). DPD activity testing identifies patients at elevated risk of severe FP-related toxicity (FP-TOX). The two most used methods for DPD testing are DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping (plasma uracil concentration). The primary objective of this study was to compare the overall frequency of overall grade ≥3 FP-TOX before and after the implementation of DPYD genotyping. Two hundred thirty Danish, primarily gastrointestinal cancer patients, were DPYD-genotyped before their first dose of FP, and blood was sampled for post hoc assessment of P-uracil. The initial dose was reduced for variant carriers. Grade ≥3 FP-TOX was registered after the first three treatment cycles of FP. The frequency of toxicity was compared to a historical cohort of 492 patients with post hoc determined DPYD genotype from a biobank. The frequency of overall grade ≥3 FP-TOX was 27% in the DPYD genotype-guided group compared to 24% in the historical cohort. In DPYD variant carriers, DPYD genotyping reduced the frequency of FP-related hospitalization from 19% to 0%. In the control group, 4.8% of DPYD variant carriers died due to FP-TOX compared to 0% in the group receiving DPYD genotype-guided dosing of FP. In the intervention group, wild-type patients with uracil ≥16 ng/ml had a higher frequency of FP-TOX than wild-type patients with uracil <16 ng/ml (55% versus 28%). We found no population-level benefit of DPYD genotyping when comparing the risk of grade ≥3 FP-TOX before and after clinical implementation. We observed no deaths or FP-related hospitalizations in patients whose FP treatment was guided by a variant DPYD genotype. The use of DPD phenotyping may add valuable information in DPYD wild-type patients.

DPYD genotyping and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotyping in clinical oncology. A clinically focused minireview.

In clinical oncology, systemic 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its oral pro-drugs are used to treat a broad group of solid tumours. Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme deficiency are at elevated risk of toxicity if treated with standard doses of 5-FU. DPYD genotyping and measurements of plasma uracil concentration (DPD phenotyping) can be applied as tests for DPD deficiency. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended pre-treatment DPD testing to reduce the risk of 5-FU-related toxicity. The objective of this study is to present the current evidence for DPD testing in routine oncological practice. Two systematic literature searches were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We identified studies examining the possible benefit of DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping on the toxicity risk. Nine and 12 studies met the criteria for using DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping, respectively. The evidence supporting either DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping as pre-treatment tests to reduce 5-FU toxicity is poor. Further evidence is still needed to fully understand and guide clinicians to dose by DPD activity.

70P Fluoropyrimidine (FP) dose individualization based on pretreatment uracil levels: Safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis from the Alpe2U study

Risk of severe adverse events (AEs) during FP treatment can be significantly reduced through dose reduction in patients (pts) with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency, the main FP metabolizing enzyme. Hence, in 2020 EMA stated that screening for DPD deficiency should be performed before FP treatment by DPYD genotyping, or by DPD phenotyping using plasma uracil (U) levels. Based on previous studies, pts with U >16 ng/ml are considered DPD deficient. However, a specific dosing strategy for these pts is missing.

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Phenotyping Using Pretreatment Uracil: A Note of Caution Based on a Large Prospective Clinical Study.

In clinical practice, 25–30% of the patients treated with fluoropyrimidines experience severe fluoropyrimidine‐related toxicity. Extensively clinically validated DPYD genotyping tests are available to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity due to decreased activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate limiting enzyme in fluoropyrimidine metabolism. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended that, as an alternative for DPYD genotype‐based testing for DPD deficiency, also phenotype testing based on pretreatment plasma uracil levels is a suitable method to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Although the evidence for genotype‐directed dosing of fluoropyrimidines is substantial, the level of evidence supporting plasma uracil levels to predict DPD activity in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding this, uracil‐based phenotyping is now used in clinical practice in various countries in Europe. We aimed to determine the value of pretreatment uracil levels in predicting DPD deficiency and severe treatment‐related toxicity. To this end, we determined pretreatment uracil levels in 955 patients with cancer, and assessed the correlation with DPD activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and fluoropyrimidine‐related severe toxicity. We identified substantial issues concerning the use of pretreatment uracil in clinical practice, including large between‐center study differences in measured pretreatment uracil levels, most likely as a result of pre‐analytical factors. Importantly, we were not able to correlate pretreatment uracil levels with DPD activity nor were uracil levels predictive of severe treatment‐related toxicity. We urge that robust clinical validation should first be performed before pretreatment plasma uracil levels are used in clinical practice as part of a dosing strategy for fluoropyrimidines.

Potential added value of combined DPYD/DPD genotyping and phenotyping to prevent severe toxicity in patients with a DPYD variant and decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase enzyme activity.

To investigate if dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping has added value when combined with DPYD genotyping in predicting fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Retrospective cohort study in which treatment and toxicity data were collected of 228 patients genotyped for four DPYD variants and phenotyped using an ex vivo peripheral blood mononuclear cell assay. Severe toxicity occurred in 25% of patients with a variant and normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, in 21% of patients without a variant and with decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, and in 29% of patients without a variant and with normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity (controls). The majority of patients with a variant or a decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity received an initial dose reduction (68% and 53% vs 19% in controls) and had a lower mean dose intensity (75% and 81% vs 91% in controls). Fifty percent of patients with a variant and decreased enzyme activity experienced severe toxicity, despite the lowest initial dose and whole treatment dose intensity. They also experienced more grade 4/5 toxicities. Our results indicate that a combined genotype-phenotype approach could be useful to identify patients at increased risk for fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity (e.g. patients with a variant and decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity). Because the group sizes are too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences, this warrants further research in a prospective study in a larger cohort.

Association of 5-FU Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to DPD Phenotype Assessment May Reduce 5-FU Under-Exposure.

In order to limit 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) toxicity, some health agencies recommend evaluating dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency before any 5-FU treatment introduction. In our study, we investigated relationships between 5-FU clearance and markers of DPD activity such as uracilemia (U), dihydrouracilemia (UH2)/U ratio, or genotype of the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). All patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received 5-FU-based regimens form March 2018 to June 2020 were included in our study. They routinely benefited of a pre-therapeutic DPYD genotyping and phenotyping. During 5-FU infusion, blood samples were collected to measure 5-FU steady-state concentration in order to adapt 5-FU doses at the following cycles. A total of 169 patients were included. Median age was 68 (40–88) years and main primary tumor sites were colorectal (40.8%) and pancreas (31.4%), metastatic in 76.3%. 5-FU was given as part of FOLFIRINOX (44.4%), simplified FOLFOX-6 (26.6%), or docetaxel/FOLFOX-4 (10.6%). Regarding DPD activity, median U and UH2/U were, respectively, 10.8 ng/mL and 10.1, and almost 15% harbored a heterozygous mutation. On the range of measured U and UH2/U, no correlation was observed with 5-FU clearance. Moreover, in patients with U < 16 ng/mL, 5-FU exposure was higher than in other patients, and most of them benefited of dose increase following 5-FU therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). If recent guidelines recommend decreasing 5-FU dose in patients harboring U ≥ 16 ng/mL, our study highlights that those patients are at risk of under-exposure and that 5-FU TDM should be conducted in order to avoid loss of efficacy.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies for Fluoropyrimidine Treatment of Patients Carrying Multiple DPYD Variants.

DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine treatment is increasingly implemented in clinical care. Without phasing information (i.e., allelic location of variants), current genotype-based dosing guidelines cannot be applied to patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. The primary aim of this study is to examine diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for fluoropyrimidine treatment of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. A case series of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants is presented. Different genotyping techniques were used to determine phasing information. Phenotyping was performed by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity measurements. Publicly available databases were queried to explore the frequency and phasing of variants of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. Four out of seven patients carrying multiple DPYD variants received a full dose of fluoropyrimidines and experienced severe toxicity. Phasing information could be retrieved for four patients. In three patients, variants were located on two different alleles, i.e., in trans. Recommended dose reductions based on the phased genotype differed from the phenotype-derived dose reductions in three out of four cases. Data from publicly available databases show that the frequency of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants is low (< 0.2%), but higher than the frequency of the commonly tested DPYD*13 variant (0.1%). Patients carrying multiple DPYD variants are at high risk of developing severe toxicity. Additional analyses are required to determine the correct dose of fluoropyrimidine treatment. In patients carrying multiple DPYD variants, we recommend that a DPD phenotyping assay be carried out to determine a safe starting dose.

New advances in DPYD genotype and risk of severe toxicity under capecitabine.

BackgroundDeficiency in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme is the main cause of severe and lethal fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Various approaches have been developed for DPD-deficiency screening, including DPYD genotyping and phenotyping. The goal of this prospective observational study was to perform exhaustive exome DPYD sequencing and to examine relationships between DPYD variants and toxicity in advanced breast cancer patients receiving capecitabine.MethodsTwo-hundred forty-three patients were analysed (88.5% capecitabine monotherapy). Grade 3 and grade 4 capecitabine-related digestive and/or neurologic and/or hemato-toxicities were observed in 10.3% and 2.1% of patients, respectively. DPYD exome, along with flanking intronic regions 3’UTR and 5’UTR, were sequenced on MiSeq Illumina. DPD phenotype was assessed by pre-treatment plasma uracil (U) and dihydrouracil (UH2) measurement.ResultsAmong the 48 SNPs identified, 19 were located in coding regions, including 3 novel variations, each observed in a single patient (among which, F100L and A26T, both pathogenic in silico). Combined analysis of deleterious variants *2A, I560S (*13) and D949V showed significant association with grade 3–4 toxicity (sensitivity 16.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 71.4%, relative risk (RR) 6.7, p<0.001) but not with grade 4 toxicity. Considering additional deleterious coding variants D342G, S492L, R592W and F100L increased the sensitivity to 26.7% for grade 3–4 toxicity (PPV 72.7%, RR 7.6, p<0.001), and was significantly associated with grade 4 toxicity (sensitivity 60%, PPV 27.3%, RR 31.4, p = 0.001), suggesting the clinical relevance of extended targeted DPYD genotyping. As compared to extended genotype, combining genotyping (7 variants) and phenotyping (U>16 ng/ml) did not substantially increase the sensitivity, while impairing PPV and RR.ConclusionsExploring an extended set of deleterious DPYD variants improves the performance of DPYD genotyping for predicting both grade 3–4 and grade 4 toxicities (digestive and/or neurologic and/or hematotoxicities) related to capecitabine, as compared to conventional genotyping restricted to consensual variants *2A, *13 and D949V.

Pretreatment serum uracil concentration as a predictor of severe and fatal fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity

Background:We investigated the predictive value of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotype, measured as pretreatment serum uracil and dihydrouracil concentrations, for severe as well as fatal fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity in 550 patients treated previously with fluoropyrimidines during a prospective multicenter study.Methods:Pretreatment serum concentrations of uracil and dihydrouracil were measured using a validated LC-MS/MS method. The primary endpoint of this analysis was global (any) severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity, that is, grade ⩾3 toxicity according to the NCI CTC-AE v3.0, occurring during the first cycle of treatment. The predictive value of uracil and the uracil/dihydrouracil ratio for early severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity were compared. Pharmacogenetic variants in DPYD (c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, c.1129-5923C>G, and c.1601G>A) and TYMS (TYMS 5′-UTR VNTR and TYMS 3′-UTR 6-bp ins/del) were measured and tested for associations with severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity to compare predictive value with DPD phenotype. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to control for type I errors at level q<0.050 (corresponding to P<0.010).Results:Uracil was superior to the dihydrouracil/uracil ratio as a predictor of severe toxicity. High pretreatment uracil concentrations (>16 ng ml−1) were strongly associated with global severe toxicity (OR 5.3, P=0.009), severe gastrointestinal toxicity (OR 33.7, P<0.0001), toxicity-related hospitalisation (OR 16.9, P<0.0001), as well as fatal treatment-related toxicity (OR 44.8, P=0.001). None of the DPYD variants alone, or TYMS variants alone, were associated with severe toxicity.Conclusions:High pretreatment uracil concentration was strongly predictive of severe, including fatal, fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity, and is a highly promising phenotypic marker to identify patients at risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity.

Beating the odds: efficacy and toxicity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-driven adaptive dosing of 5-FU in patients with digestive cancer.

5-FU is the backbone of most regimens in digestive oncology. Administration of standard 5-FU leads to 15-30% of severe side effects, and lethal toxicities are regularly reported with fluoropyrimidine drugs. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is a pharmacogenetic syndrome responsible for most cases of life-threatening toxicities upon 5-FU intake, and pre-treatment checking for DPD status should help to reduce both incidence and severity of side effects through adaptive dosing strategies. We have used a simple method for rapidly establishing the DPD phenotype of patients with cancer and used it prospectively in 59 routine patients treated with 5-FU-based therapy for digestive cancers. No patient with total DPD deficiency was found but 23% of patients exhibited poor metabolizer phenotype, and one patient was phenotyped as profoundly deficient. Consequently, 5-FU doses in poor metabolizer patients were cut by an average 35% as compared with non deficient patients (2390 ± 1225 mg vs. 3653 ± 1371 mg, P < 0.003, t-test). Despite this marked reduction in 5-FU dosing, similar efficacy was achieved in the two subsets (clinical benefit: 40 vs. 43%, stable disease: 40 vs. 37%, progressive disease: 20% in both subsets, P = 0.893, Pearson's chi-square). No difference in toxicities was observed (P = 0.104, Fisher's exact test). Overall, only 3% of early severe toxicities were recorded, a value markedly lower than the 15-30% ones usually reported with 5-FU. This feasibility study shows how simplified DPD-based adaptive dosing of 5-FU can reduce sharply the incidence of treatment-related severe toxicities while maintaining efficacy as part of routine clinical practice in digestive oncology.

Influence of metastatic disease on the usefulness of uracil pharmacokinetics as a screening tool for DPD activity in colorectal cancer patients.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency can lead to severe toxicity in patients treated with a standard dose of a fluoropyrimidine such as 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine (CAP). Administration of oral uracil and subsequent measurement of uracil and dihydrouracil (DHU) plasma concentrations has been used to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Liver metastasis might influence systemic DPD activity. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of metastatic disease on the pharmacokinetics of uracil and DHU after oral administration of uracil. 500mg/m(2) uracil was administered orally to 12 subjects with stages II-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated in the adjuvant setting and to 12 subjects with stage IV metastasized CRC, all treated with CAP containing therapy. All subjects had a normal DPD activity defined as >6nmol/mg/h determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The mean uracil clearance [CL 51.7 (SD 6.4) vs. 46.7 (SD 13.0) l/h], area under the curve [AUC0-220min 20.6 (SD 6.4) vs. 21.0 (SD 5.7) hmg/l], elimination half-life [t 1/2 21 (SD 7) vs. 21 (SD 8) min], maximum concentration time [T max 27 (SD 9) vs. 25 (SD 9) min], volume of distribution [V 26.58 (SD 10.11) vs. 21.10 (SD 8.48) l] and the elimination constant [k el 2.01 (SD 0.56) vs. 2.41 (SD 0.72) h(-1)] did not differ significantly (p>0.05) non-metastatic CRD versus metastatic CRC. Metastasis does not alter uracil pharmacokinetics andis similar in CRC patients with and without metastasis. Therefore, the uracil test dose could be used as a DPD phenotype test in both adjuvantly treated and metastatic CRC patients using similar cutoff criteria to identify patients with DPD deficiency.