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

Strategies for DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in the US

PURPOSE

Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency are at high risk for severe and fatal toxicity from fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy. Pre-treatment DPYD testing is standard of care in many countries, but not the United States (US). This survey assessed pre-treatment DPYD testing approaches in the US to identify best practices for broader adoption.

METHODS

From August to October 2023, a 22-item QualtricsXM survey was sent to institutions and clinicians known to conduct pre-treatment DPYD testing and broadly distributed through relevant organizations and social networks. Responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Responses from 24 unique US sites that have implemented pre-treatment DPYD testing or have a detailed implementation plan in place were analyzed. Only 33% of sites ordered DPYD testing for all FP-treated patients; at the remaining sites, patients were tested depending on disease characteristics or clinician preference. Almost 50% of sites depend on individual clinicians to remember to order testing without the assistance of electronic alerts or workflow reminders. DPYD testing was most often conducted by commercial laboratories that tested for at least the four or five DPYD variants considered clinically actionable. Approximately 90% of sites reported receiving results within 10 days of ordering.

CONCLUSION

Implementing DPYD testing into routine clinical practice is feasible and requires a coordinated effort among the healthcare team. These results will be used to develop best practices for the clinical adoption of DPYD testing to prevent severe and fatal toxicity in cancer patients receiving FP chemotherapy.

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

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.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene variants for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity: FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity.

METHODS

Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants.

CONCLUSIONS

FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity.

A Nomogram to Predict Severe Toxicity in DPYD Wild-Type Patients Treated With Capecitabine-Based Anticancer Regimens

DPYD-guided dosing has improved the safety of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in recent years. However, severe toxicity remains in ~ 23% of patients not carrying DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine. Therefore, we developed a predictive model based on patient-related and treatment-related factors aimed at estimating the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The nomogram was developed using data from two large clinical trials (NCT00838370 and NCT02324452). Patients with cancer carrying a DPYD variant allele (DPYD*2A, c.1236G>A, c.2846A>T, and c.1679T>G) were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression using predetermined predictors based on previous findings, including age, sex, body surface area, type of treatment regimen, and creatinine levels were used to develop the nomogram. The developed model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling and cross-validation. This model was not externally or clinically validated. A total of 2,147 DPYD wild-type patients with cancer treated with capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens were included of which complete data of 1,745 patients were available and used for the development of the nomogram. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression showed that age, sex, and type of treatment regimen were strong predictors of severe capecitabine-related toxicity in DPYD wild-type patients. Internal validation demonstrated a concordance index of 0.68 which indicates a good discriminative ability for prediction of severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The developed nomogram includes readily available parameters and may be a helpful tool for clinicians to assess the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity in patients without known risk DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine-based anticancer regimens.

Integrating rare genetic variants into DPYD pharmacogenetic testing may help preventing fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity

Variability in genes involved in drug pharmacokinetics or drug response can be responsible for suboptimal treatment efficacy or predispose to adverse drug reactions. In addition to common genetic variations, large-scale sequencing studies have uncovered multiple rare genetic variants predicted to cause functional alterations in genes encoding proteins implicated in drug metabolism, transport and response. To understand the functional importance of rare genetic variants in DPYD, a pharmacogene whose alterations can cause severe toxicity in patients exposed to fluoropyrimidine-based regimens, massively parallel sequencing of the exonic regions and flanking splice junctions of the DPYD gene was performed in a series of nearly 3000 patients categorized according to pre-emptive DPD enzyme activity using the dihydrouracil/uracil ([UH2]/[U]) plasma ratio as a surrogate marker of DPD activity. Our results underscore the importance of integrating next-generation sequencing-based pharmacogenomic interpretation into clinical decision making to minimize fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy toxicity without altering treatment efficacy.

Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: Perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation.

METHODS

A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation.

CONCLUSION

PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.

Survival of Patients With Cancer With DPYD Variant Alleles and Dose-Individualized Fluoropyrimidine Therapy-A Matched-Pair Analysis

PURPOSE

DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis.

METHODS

Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers.

CONCLUSION

In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

Response to the FDA Decision Regarding DPYD Testing Prior to Fluoropyrimidine Chemotherapy

Fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy is associated with severe, life-threatening toxicities, particularly among patients who carry deleterious germline variants in the DPYD gene. Pretreatment DPYD testing is standard of care throughout most of Europe; however, it has not been recommended in clinical practice guidelines in the United States. Due to increased risk of severe toxicity, a Citizen's Petition asked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to update language in FP drug labels to recommend DPYD testing as part of a boxed warning and recommend FP dose reduction in patients carrying deleterious germline variants. In response, the FDA updated the capecitabine package insert to inform patients about the toxicity risk and test availability and consider DPYD testing. However, the FDA did not include a testing recommendation or requirement, or a boxed warning. Additionally, the FDA did not recommend FP dose adjustment in DPYD variant carriers. This review provides a critical assessment of the DPYD-FP pharmacogenetic association using the FDA's previously published Pharmacogenetic Pyramid, demonstrating that the evidence is compelling for recommending DPYD testing prior to FP treatment. Additionally, the FDA's stated concerns about recommending DPYD testing and DPYD-guided FP dose adjustment are addressed and discussed in the context of the FDA's other genetic testing and dose adjustment recommendations. We call on the FDA to follow our European counterparts in recommending DPYD testing and genotype-based dose adjustment to ensure patients with cancer receive safe and effective FP chemotherapy.

Implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in oncology: DPYD-guided dosing to prevent fluoropyrimidine toxicity in British Columbia

Background: Fluoropyrimidine toxicity is often due to variations in the gene (DPYD) encoding dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). DPYD genotyping can be used to adjust doses to reduce the likelihood of fluoropyrimidine toxicity while maintaining therapeutically effective drug levels. Methods: A multiplex QPCR assay was locally developed to allow genotyping for six DPYD variants. The test was offered prospectively for all patients starting on fluoropyrimidines at the BC Cancer Centre in Vancouver and then across B.C., Canada as well as retrospectively for patients suspected to have had an adverse reaction to therapy. Dose adjustments were made for variant carriers. The incidence of toxicity in the first three cycles was compared between DPYD variant allele carriers and non-variant carriers. Subsequent to an initial implementation phase, this test was made available province-wide. Results: In 9 months, 186 patients were tested and 14 were found to be heterozygous variant carriers. Fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers. Of 127 non-variant carriers who have completed chemotherapy, 18 (14%) experienced severe (grade ≥3, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0). Of note, 22% (3 patients) of the variant carriers experienced severe toxicity even after DPYD-guided dose reductions. For one of these carriers who experienced severe thrombocytopenia within the first week, DPYD testing likely prevented lethal toxicity. In DPYD variant carriers who tolerate reduced doses, a later 25% increase led to chemotherapy discontinuation. As a result, a recommendation was made to clinicians based on available literature and expert opinion specifying that variant carriers who tolerated two cycles without toxicity can have a dose escalation of only 10%. Conclusion: DPYD-guided dose reductions were a feasible and acceptable method of preventing severe toxicity in DPYD variant carriers. Even with dose reductions, there were variant carriers who still experienced severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity, highlighting the importance of adhering to guideline-recommended dose reductions. Following the completion of the pilot phase of this study, DPYD genotyping was made available province-wide in British Columbia.

Short-term biological variation of plasma uracil in a Caucasian healthy population

OBJECTIVES

Plasma uracil is a new biomarker to assess the activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase before cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidine drugs. Knowledge on the biological variation of plasma uracil is important to assess the applicability of plasma uracil as a biomarker of drug tolerance and efficacy.

METHODS

A total of 33 apparently healthy individuals were submitted to sequential blood draws for three days. On the second day, blood draws were performed every third hour for 12 h. Plasma uracil was quantified by LC-MS/MS. The within-subject (CVI) and between-subject (CVG) biological variation estimates were calculated using linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

The overall median value of plasma uracil was 10.6 ng/mL (range 5.6-23.1 ng/mL). The CVI and CVG were 13.5 and 22.1%, respectively. Plasma uracil remained stable during the day, and there was no day-to-day variation observed. No differences in biological variation components were found between sex and no correlation to age was found. Four samples were calculated to be required to estimate the homeostatic set-point ±15% with 95% confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma uracil is subject to tight homeostatic regulation without semidiurnal and day-to-day variation, however between-subject variation exists. This emphasizes plasma uracil as a well-suited biomarker for evaluation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, but four samples are required to establish the homeostatic set-point in a patient.

Ten-year experience with pharmacogenetic testing for DPYD in a national cancer center in Italy: Lessons learned on the path to implementation

Background: Awareness about the importance of implementing DPYD pharmacogenetics in clinical practice to prevent severe side effects related to the use of fluoropyrimidines has been raised over the years. Since 2012 at the National Cancer Institute, CRO-Aviano (Italy), a diagnostic DPYD genotyping service was set up. Purpose: This study aims to describe the evolution of DPYD diagnostic activity at our center over the last 10 years as a case example of a successful introduction of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice. Methods: Data related to the diagnostic activity of in-and out-patients referred to our service between January 2012 and December 2022 were retrieved from the hospital database. Results: DPYD diagnostic activity at our center has greatly evolved over the years, shifting gradually from a post-toxicity to a pre-treatment approach. Development of pharmacogenetic guidelines by national and international consortia, genotyping, and IT technology evolution have impacted DPYD testing uptake in the clinics. Our participation in a large prospective implementation study (Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics) increased health practitioners' and patients' awareness of pharmacogenetic matters and provided additional standardized infrastructures for genotyping and reporting. Nationwide test reimbursement together with recommendations by regulatory agencies in Europe and Italy in 2020 definitely changed the clinical practice guidelines of fluoropyrimidines prescription. A dramatic increase in the number of pre-treatment DPYD genotyping and in the coverage of new fluoropyrimidine prescriptions was noticed by the last year of observation (2022). Conclusion: The long path to a successful DPYD testing implementation in the clinical practice of a National Cancer Center in Italy demonstrated that the development of pharmacogenetic guidelines and genotyping infrastructure standardization as well as capillary training and education activity for all the potential stakeholders are fundamental. However, only national health politics of test reimbursement and clear recommendations by drug regulatory agencies will definitely move the field forward.

Screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency by measuring uracilemia in chronic kidney disease patients is associated with a high rate of false positives

BACKGROUND

Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency based on the measurement of plasma uracil ([U]) is recommended prior to the administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Cancer patients frequently have impaired kidney function, but the extent to which kidney function decline impacts [U] levels has not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

We assessed the relationship between DPD phenotypes and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in 1751 patients who benefited on the same day from a screening for DPD deficiency by measuring [U] and [UH₂]:[U], and an evaluation of eGFR. The impact of a kidney function decline on [U] levels and [UH₂]:[U] ratio was evaluated.

RESULTS

We observed that [U] was negatively correlated with eGFR, indicating that [U] levels increase as eGFR declines. For each ml/min of eGFR decrease, [U] value increased in average by 0.035 ng/ml. Using the KDIGO classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD), we observed that [U] values >16 ng/ml (DPD deficiency) were measured in 3.6 % and 4.4 % of stage 1 and 2 CKD (normal-high eGFR, >60 ml/min/1.73m²) patients, but in 6.7 % of stage 3A CKD patients (45 to 59 ml/min/1.73m²), 25% of stage 3B CKD patients (30 to 44 ml/min/1.73m²), 22.7% of stage 4 CKD patients (15 to 29 ml/min/1.73m² and 26.7% of stage 5 CKD patients (<15 ml/min/1.73m²). [UH2]:[U] ratios were not impacted by kidney function.

CONCLUSION

DPD phenotyping based on the measurement of plasma [U] in patients with decreased eGFR is associated with an exceedingly high rate of false positives when kidney function decline reaches 45 ml/minute/1.73m² of eGFR or lower. In this population, an alternative strategy that remain to be evaluated would be to measure the [UH₂]:[U] ratio in addition to [U].

Implementation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency testing in Europe

BACKGROUND

The main cause for fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity is deficiency of the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended two methods for pre-treatment DPD deficiency testing in clinical practice: phenotyping using endogenous uracil concentration or genotyping for DPYD risk variant alleles. This study assessed the DPD testing implementation status in Europe before (2019) and after (2021) the release of the EMA recommendations.

METHODS

The survey was conducted from 16 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. An electronic form with seven closed and three open questions was e-mailed to 251 professionals with DPD testing expertise of 34 European countries. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We received 79 responses (31%) from 23 countries. Following publication of the EMA recommendations, 87% and 75% of the countries reported an increase in the amount of genotype and phenotype testing, respectively. Implementation of novel local guidelines was reported by 21 responders (27%). Countries reporting reimbursement of both tests increased in 2021, and only four (18%) countries reported no coverage for any testing type. In 2019, major implementation drivers were 'retrospective assessment of fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity' (39%), and in 2021, testing was driven by 'publication of guidelines' (40%). Although the major hurdles remained the same after EMA recommendations-'lack of reimbursement' (26%; 2019 versus 15%; 2021) and 'lack of recognizing the clinical relevance by medical oncologists' (25%; 2019 versus 8%; 2021)-the percentage of specialists citing these decreased. Following EMA recommendations, 25% of responders reported no hurdles at all in the adoption of the new testing practice in the clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

The EMA recommendations have supported the implementation of DPD deficiency testing in Europe. Key factors for successful implementation were test reimbursement and clear clinical guidelines. Further efforts to improve the oncologists' awareness of the clinical relevance of DPD testing in clinical practice are needed.

Current diagnostic and clinical issues of screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency

Fluoropyrimidine drugs (FP) are the backbone of many chemotherapy protocols for treating solid tumours. The rate-limiting step of fluoropyrimidine catabolism is dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), and deficiency in DPD activity can result in severe and even fatal toxicity. In this review, we survey the evidence-based pharmacogenetics and therapeutic recommendations regarding DPYD (the gene encoding DPD) genotyping and DPD phenotyping to prevent toxicity and optimize dosing adaptation before FP administration. The French experience of mandatory DPD-deficiency screening prior to initiating FP is discussed.

Assay performance and stability of uracil and dihydrouracil in clinical practice

PURPOSE

Measurement of endogenous uracil (U) is increasingly being used as a dose-individualization method in the treatment of cancer patients with fluoropyrimidines. However, instability at room temperature (RT) and improper sample handling may cause falsely increased U levels. Therefore we aimed to study the stability of U and dihydrouracil (DHU) to ensure proper handling conditions.

METHODS

Stability of U and DHU in whole blood, serum, and plasma at RT (up to 24 h) and long-term stability (≥ 7 days) at - 20 °C were studied in samples from 6 healthy individuals. U and DHU levels of patients were compared using standard serum tubes (SSTs) and rapid serum tubes (RSTs). The performance of our validated UPLC-MS/MS assay was assessed over a period of 7 months.

RESULTS

U and DHU levels significantly increased at RT in whole blood and serum after blood sampling with increases of 12.7 and 47.6% after 2 h, respectively. A significant difference (p = 0.0036) in U and DHU levels in serum was found between SSTs and RSTs. U and DHU were stable at - 20 °C at least 2 months in serum and 3 weeks in plasma. Assay performance assessment fulfilled the acceptance criteria for system suitability, calibration standards, and quality controls.

CONCLUSION

A maximum of 1 h at RT between sampling and processing is recommended to ensure reliable U and DHU results. Assay performance tests showed that our UPLC-MS/MS method was robust and reliable. Additionally, we provided a guideline for proper sample handling, processing and reliable quantification of U and DHU.

Quantitative impact of pre-analytical process on plasma uracil when testing for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency

AIMS

Determining dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity by measuring patient's uracil (U) plasma concentration is mandatory before fluoropyrimidine (FP) administration in France. In this study, we aimed to refine the pre-analytical recommendations for determining U and dihydrouracil (UH₂ ) concentrations, as they are essential in reliable DPD-deficiency testing.

METHODS

U and UH₂ concentrations were collected from 14 hospital laboratories. Stability in whole blood and plasma after centrifugation, the type of anticoagulant and long-term plasma storage were evaluated. The variation induced by time and temperature was calculated and compared to an acceptability range of ±20%. Inter-occasion variability (IOV) of U and UH₂ was assessed in 573 patients double sampled for DPD-deficiency testing.

RESULTS

Storage of blood samples before centrifugation at room temperature (RT) should not exceed 1 h, whereas cold (+4°C) storage maintains the stability of uracil after 5 hours. For patients correctly double sampled, IOV of U reached 22.4% for U (SD = 17.9%, range = 0-99%). Notably, 17% of them were assigned with a different phenotype (normal or DPD-deficient) based on the analysis of their two samples. For those having at least one non-compliant sample, this percentage increased up to 33.8%. The moment of blood collection did not affect the DPD phenotyping result.

CONCLUSION

Caution should be taken when interpreting U concentrations if the time before centrifugation exceeds 1 hour at RT, since it rises significantly afterwards. Not respecting the pre-analytical conditions for DPD phenotyping increases the risk of DPD status misclassification.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Renal impairment and abnormal liver function tests in pre-therapeutic phenotype-based DPD deficiency screening using uracilemia: a comprehensive population-based study in 1138 patients

Background

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency screening is a pre-therapeutic standard to prevent severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Although several screening methods exist, the accuracy of their results remains debatable. In France, the uracilemia measurement is considered the standard in DPD deficiency screening. The objective of this study was to describe the hyperuracilemia (⩾16 ng/mL) rate and investigate the influence of hepatic and renal impairment in uracilemia measurements since the guidelines were implemented.

Patients and methods

Using a cohort of 1138 patients screened between 18 October 2018 and 18 October 2021, basic demographic characteristics, date of blood sampling, and potential biological confounders including liver function tests [aspartate aminotransaminase (AST), alanine aminotransaminase (ALT), gamma-glutamyl transferase (γGT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and bilirubin] and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were collected. The second same-patient uracilemia analysis was also performed. Temporal change was graphically represented while potential confounders were stratified to show linearity when suspected.

Results

Hyperuracilemia was diagnosed in 12.7% (n = 150) samples with 6.7%, 5.4%, 0.5%, and 0.08% between 16 and 20 ng/mL, 20 and 50 ng/mL, 50 and 150 ng/mL, and >150 ng/mL, respectively. The median uracilemia concentration was 9.4 ng/mL (range: 1.2 and 172.3 ng/mL) and the monthly hyperuracilemia rate decreased steadily from >30% to around 9%. Older age, normalized AST, γGT, ALP results, bilirubin levels, and decreased eGFR were linearly associated with higher plasma uracil concentrations (all p < 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate linear model, AST, eGFR, and ALP remained associated with uracilemia (p < 0.05). When measured twice in 39 patients, the median uracilemia rate of change was -2.5%, which subsequently changed the diagnosis in nine patients (23.1%).

Conclusions

Better respect of pre-analytical conditions may explain the steady decrease in monthly hyperuracilemia rates over the 3 years. Elevated AST, ALP levels, and reduced eGFR could induce a false increase in uracilemia and second uracilemia measurements modified the first DPD deficiency diagnosis in almost 25% of the patients.

Instability of uracil in whole blood might affect cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Measurement of plasma uracil is used before cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidines to determine if patients tolerate a full dose. Incorrect preanalytical handling may cause falsely elevated concentration and result in suboptimal cancer treatment. We aimed to examine the stability of uracil in whole blood stored at room temperature (RT) and the effect of centrifugation temperature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EDTA tubes (6x4 mL) were collected from 25 healthy volunteers. Five samples were stored 0, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 h at RT and centrifuged at 4 °C. The sixth sample was centrifuged at RT after 1.5 h. Uracil was measured using an in-house LC-MS/MS method.

RESULTS

Storage of whole blood at RT followed by centrifugation at 4 °C caused a rapid increase in uracil concentration. Already after 1.5 h, the mean change (20.5 % (95 % CI: 11.9-29.2 %)) exceeded the maximum permissible difference. Centrifugation at RT instead of 4 °C after 1.5 h resulted in a smaller increase (7.0 % (95 % CI: 0.7-13.4 %)), although not statistically significant (p = 0.0527).

CONCLUSION

Uracil was unstable in samples processed according to current recommendations. Our data indicates better stability when centrifugation is performed at RT compared with 4 °C but further research into this is necessary.

Fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity and DPYD variants c.85T>C, c.496A>G, and c.1236G>A: impact of haplotype

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) is the rate-limiting step in fluoropyrimidines metabolism. Currently, genotype-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing is recommended for four DPYD single nucleotide variants (SNVs). However, the clinical impact of additional DPYD SNVs on fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity remains controversial. We assessed common DPYD SNVs c.85T>C, and c.496A>G which are often in linkage disequilibrium with c.1236G>A, a variant currently recommended for DPYD genotyping, in a retrospective cohort of cancer patients who had received fluoropyrimidines (N = 1371). When assessing individual SNVs, during the total chemotherapy treatment period, a significant increased risk of severe grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen in carriers of c.496A>G (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.88, p = 0.0405) after adjusting for age, sex and treatment drug (capecitabine or 5-Fluorouracil). No association with fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was seen in patients given standard dosing among those carrying one allele of DPYD c.1236G>A (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.59-2.27, p = 0.6147) or c.85T>C (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.80-1.62, p = 0.7536). Haplotype analysis confirmed a high linkage disequilibrium of these three variants. Toxicity was not significantly increased in haplotypes containing only one of c.85T>C or c.496A>G or c.1236G>A alleles. However, the haplotype containing both c.85T>C and c.496A>G alleles, which had a predicted frequency of 7.1%, was associated with an increased risk of fluoropyrimidine toxicity (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.15-2.13, p = 0.0041). This study suggests DPYD haplotype structure may help explain previous conflicting studies concerning the impact of these variants. Our findings suggest patients with both DPYD c.85T>C and c.496A>G variants have a significant increased risk for toxicity and may potentially benefit from genotype-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to present the current evidence for DPD testing in routine oncological practice.

METHODS

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.

FINDINGS

Nine and 12 studies met the criteria for using DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Impact of Guidelines Regarding Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPD) Deficiency Screening Using Uracil-Based Phenotyping on the Reduction of Severe Side Effect of 5-Fluorouracil-Based Chemotherapy: A Propension Score Analysis

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is associated with severe fluoropyrimidines-induced toxicity. As of September 2018, French recommendations call for screening for DPD deficiency by plasma uracil quantification prior to all fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. A dose reduction of fluoropyrimidine is recommended when uracil concentration is equal to or greater than 16 ng/mL. This matched retrospective study assessed the impact of DPD screening on the reduction of severe side effects and on the management of DPD-deficient patients. Using a propensity score, we balanced the factors influencing 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) toxicity. Then, the severity scores (G3 and G4 severity as well as their frequency) of patients who did not benefit from DPD screening were compared with those of patients who benefited from DPD screening for each treatment cycle (from 1 to 4). Among 349 screened patients, 198 treated patients were included. Among them, 31 (15.7%) had DPD deficiency (median uracilemia 19.8 ng/mL (range: 16.1−172.3)). The median toxicity severity score was higher in the unscreened group for each treatment cycle (0 vs. 1, p < 0.001 at each cycle from 1 to 4) as well as the cumulative score during all courses of treatment (p = 0.028). DPD-deficient patients received a significantly lower dose of 5-FU (p < 0.001). This study suggests that pretherapeutic plasmatic uracil assessment, along with 5-FU dosage adjustment, may be beneficial in reducing 5-FU toxicity in real-life patients.

Rare genetic variant burden in DPYD predicts severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity risk

Preemptive targeted pharmacogenetic testing of candidate variations in DPYD is currently being used to limit toxicity associated with fluoropyrimidines. The use of innovative next generation sequencing (NGS) approaches could unveil additional rare (minor allele frequency <1%) genetic risk variants. However, their predictive value and management in clinical practice are still controversial, at least partly due to the challenges associated with functional analyses of rare variants. The aim of this study was to define the predictive power of rare DPYD variants burden on the risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity.

The DPYD coding sequence and untranslated regions were analyzed by NGS in 120 patients developing grade 3–5 (NCI-CTC vs3.0) fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity and 104 matched controls (no-toxicity). The functional impact of rare variants was assessed using two different in silico predictive tools (i.e., Predict2SNP and ADME Prediction Framework) and structural modeling. Plasma concentrations of uracil (U) and dihydrouracil (UH2) were quantified in carriers of the novel variants.

Here, we demonstrate that the burden of rare variants was significantly higher in patients with toxicity compared to controls (p = 0.007, Mann-Whitney test). Carriers of at least one rare missense DPYD variant had a 16-fold increased risk in the first cycle and an 11-fold increased risk during the entire course of chemotherapy of developing a severe adverse event compared to controls (p = 0.013 and p = 0.0250, respectively by multinomial regression model). Quantification of plasmatic U/UH2 metabolites and in silico visualization of the encoded protein were consistent with the predicted functional effect for the novel variations.

Analysis and consideration of rare variants by DPYD-sequencing could improve prevention of severe toxicity of fluoropyrimidines and improve patients’ quality of life.

•

DPYD genotype-guided dosing reduces fluoropyrimidine (FP) toxicity risk.

•

Rare DPYD variants associate with severe FP toxicities.

•

Carriers of rare DPYD variants have 11-fold increased risk of toxicity.

•

DPYD sequencing and in silico functional prediction could prevent FP toxicity events.

Renal impairment and DPD testing: watch out for false-positive results!

Measuring uracil (U) levels in plasma is a convenient surrogate to establish DPD status in patients scheduled with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine. To what extent renal impairment could impact on U levels and thus be a confounding factor is a rising concern. Here, we report the case of a cancer patient with severe renal impairment scheduled for 5-FU-based regimen. Determination of his DPD status was complicated because of his condition and the influence of intermittent hemodialysis when monitoring U levels. The patient was initially identified as markedly DPD-deficient upon U measurement (i.e., U = 40 ng/ml), but further monitoring between and immediately after dialysis showed mild deficiency only (i.e., U = 34 and U = 19 ng/ml, respectively). Despite this discrepancy, starting dose of 5-FU was cut by 50% upon treatment initiation. Tolerance was good and 5-FU dosing was next shifted to 25% reduction, then further shifted to normal dosing at the 5^th course, with still no sign for drug-related toxicities. Further DPYD genotyping showed none of the 4 allelic variants usually associated with loss of DPD activity. Of note, the excellent tolerance upon standard dosing strongly suggests that this patient was actually not DPD-deficient, despite U values always above normal concentrations. This case report highlights how critical is the information regarding the renal function of patients with cancer when phenotyping DPD using U plasma as a surrogate, and that U accumulation in patients with such condition is likely to yield false-positive results.

Testing for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency to Individualize 5-Fluorouracil Therapy

Simple Summary

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy drug that is commonly used to treat multiple cancers. Many people who are treated with 5-FU experience severe toxicity to the drug, and in severe cases, patients can die. This review discusses current methods for identifying people who are at high risk for severe side effects to 5-FU therapy.

Abstract

Severe adverse events (toxicity) related to the use of the commonly used chemotherapeutic drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) affect one in three patients and are the primary reason cited for premature discontinuation of therapy. Deficiency of the 5-FU catabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, encoded by DPYD) has been recognized for the past 3 decades as a pharmacogenetic syndrome associated with high risk of 5-FU toxicity. An appreciable fraction of patients with DPD deficiency that receive 5-FU-based chemotherapy die as a result of toxicity. In this manuscript, we review recent progress in identifying actionable markers of DPD deficiency and the current status of integrating those markers into the clinical decision-making process. The limitations of currently available tests, as well as the regulatory status of pre-therapeutic DPYD testing, are also discussed.