A cost analysis of upfront DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy

Evaluation of early fluoropyrimidine toxicity in solid organ cancer patients: a retrospective observational study in Australia

BACKGROUND

Despite common global usage, fluoropyrimidine (FP; 5-flurouracil and capecitabine)-related chemotherapy toxicity is poorly reported in the literature, with serious toxicity ranging from 10% to 40% and early toxicity (within 60 days of exposure) quoted at 14%. Data reflecting the incidence of Grades 3-5 FP-related toxicity in Australian cancer patients is scant, despite the significant impact of toxicity on patients (hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and even death).

AIMS

This retrospective audit evaluated Grades 3-5 toxicities in a contemporaneous cohort of 500 patients receiving FP chemotherapies within the Hunter-New England Local Health District from June 2020 to June 2022. Data were extracted from public hospital records and oncology-specific e-records to determine rates of toxicity and associated hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and deaths that occurred within 60 days of first exposure to FP chemotherapy-containing regimens.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty incidents of Grades 3-4 toxicity in the first 60 days led to 87 patients presenting to hospital (87/500, 17.4%). The most common serious toxicities were diarrhoea (39.3%), nausea and vomiting (22.7%) and febrile neutropaenia (10%). Four patients were admitted to the ICU, and four patients died of toxicity. Within the first 60 days, 22.2% of patients required treatment delays, 21.4% required dose reductions, and 7.8% of patients ceased treatment because of toxicities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our experience reflects international reports and is likely generalisable to the Australian population. These data are a basis to understand the potential benefits of precision medicine strategies such as pharmacogenomic screening to improve patient tolerability and the cost-effectiveness of FP chemotherapy prescribing.

Real-World Impact of an In-House Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) Genotype Test on Fluoropyrimidine Dosing, Toxicities, and Hospitalizations at a Multisite Cancer Center

PURPOSE

Fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity and mortality risk increases significantly in patients carrying certain DPYD genetic variants with standard dosing. We implemented DPYD genotyping at a multisite cancer center and evaluated its impact on dosing, toxicity, and hospitalization.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, patients receiving (reactive) or planning to receive (pretreatment) fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were genotyped for five DPYD variants as standard practice per provider discretion. The primary end point was the proportion of variant carriers receiving fluoropyrimidine modifications. Secondary end points included mean relative dose intensity, fluoropyrimidine-related grade 3+ toxicities, and hospitalizations. Fisher's exact test compared toxicity and hospitalization rates between pretreatment carriers, reactive carriers, and wild-type patients. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with toxicity and hospitalization risk. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated time to event of first grade 3+ toxicity and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of the 757 patients who received DPYD genotyping (median age 63, 54% male, 74% White, 19% Black, 88% GI malignancy), 45 (5.9%) were heterozygous carriers. Fluoropyrimidine was modified in 93% of carriers who started treatment. In 442 patients with 3-month follow-up, 64%, 31%, and 30% of reactive carriers, pretreatment carriers, and wild-type patients had grade 3+ toxicity, respectively (P = .085); 64%, 25%, and 13% were hospitalized (P < .001). Reactive carriers had 10-fold higher odds of hospitalization compared with wild-type patients (P = .001), whereas no significant difference was noted between pretreatment carriers and wild-type patients. Time-to-event of toxicity and hospitalization were significantly different between genotype groups (P < .001), with reactive carriers having the earliest onset and highest incidence.

CONCLUSION

DPYD genotyping prompted fluoropyrimidine modifications in most carriers. Pretreatment testing reduced toxicities and hospitalizations compared with reactive testing, thus normalizing the risk to that of wild-type patients, and should be considered standard practice.

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.

Implementation of pre-emptive testing of a pharmacogenomic panel in clinical practice: Where do we stand?

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for a large proportion of hospitalizations among adults and are more common in multimorbid patients, worsening clinical outcomes and burdening healthcare resources. Over the past decade, pharmacogenomics has been developed as a practical tool for optimizing treatment outcomes by mitigating the risk of ADRs. Some single-gene reactive tests are already used in clinical practice, including the DPYD test for fluoropyrimidines, which demonstrates how integrating pharmacogenomic data into routine care can improve patient safety in a cost-effective manner. The evolution from reactive single-gene testing to comprehensive pre-emptive genotyping panels holds great potential for refining drug prescribing practices. Several implementation projects have been conducted to test the feasibility of applying different genetic panels in clinical practice. Recently, the results of a large prospective randomized trial in Europe (the PREPARE study by Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics consortium) have provided the first evidence that prospective application of a pre-emptive pharmacogenomic test panel in clinical practice, in seven European healthcare systems, is feasible and yielded a 30% reduction in the risk of developing clinically relevant toxicities. Nevertheless, some important questions remain unanswered and will hopefully be addressed by future dedicated studies. These issues include the cost-effectiveness of applying a pre-emptive genotyping panel, the role of multiple co-medications, the transferability of currently tested pharmacogenetic guidelines among patients of non-European origin and the impact of rare pharmacogenetic variants that are not detected by currently used genotyping approaches.

Irinotecan-Induced Toxicity: A Pharmacogenetic Study Beyond UGT1A1

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Side effects of irinotecan treatment can be dose limiting and may impair quality of life. In this study, we investigated the correlation between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding enzymes involved in the irinotecan metabolism and transport, outside UGT1A1, and irinotecan-related toxicity. We focused on carboxylesterases, which are involved in formation of the active metabolite SN-38 and on drug transporters.

METHODS

Patients who provided written informed consent at the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute to the Code Geno study (local protocol: MEC02-1002) or the IRI28-study (NTR-6612) were enrolled in the study and were genotyped for 15 SNPs in the genes CES1, CES2, SLCO1B1, ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2.

RESULTS

From 299 evaluable patients, 86 patients (28.8%) developed severe irinotecan-related toxicity. A significantly higher risk of toxicity was seen in ABCG2 c.421C>A variant allele carriers (P = 0.030, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.06-3.34). Higher age was associated with all grade diarrhea (P = 0.041, OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06). In addition, CES1 c.1165-41C>T and CES1 n.95346T>C variant allele carriers had a lower risk of all-grade thrombocytopenia (P = 0.024, OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.90 and P = 0.018, OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.79, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that ABCG2 and CES1 SNPs might be used as predictive markers for irinotecan-induced toxicity.

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 upfront DPYD genotyping with a low-cost and high-throughput assay to guide fluoropyrimidine treatment in cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Genetic variants in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD ) gene are associated with reduced dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase enzyme activity and can cause severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. We assessed the frequency of the four most common and well-established DPYD variants associated with fluoropyrimidine toxicity and implemented a relatively low-cost and high-throughput genotyping assay for their detection.

METHODS

This study includes 457 patients that were genotyped for the DPYD c.1129-5923C>G, c.1679T>G, c.1905 + 1G>A and c.2846A>T variants, either by Sanger sequencing or kompetitive allele specific PCR (KASP) technology. Of these, 172 patients presented toxicity during treatment with fluoropyrimidines (post-treatment group), and 285 were tested before treatment (pretreatment group).

RESULTS

Heterozygous DPYD variants were identified in 7.4% of the entire series of 457 patients, being the c.2846A>T the most frequent variant. In the post-treatment group, 15.7% of the patients presented DPYD variants, whereas only 2.5% of the patients in the pretreatment group presented a variant. The KASP assays designed in this study presented 100% genotype concordance with the results obtained by Sanger sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined assessment of the four DPYD variants in our population increases the identification of patients at high risk for developing fluoropyrimidine toxicity, supporting the upfront routine implementation of DPYD variant genotyping. Furthermore, the KASP genotyping assay described in this study presents a rapid turnaround time and relatively low cost, making upfront DPYD screening feasible in clinical practice.

Upfront DPYD Genotype-Guided Treatment for Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Fluoropyrimidines are the most widely used chemotherapy drugs for advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Individuals with certain DPYD gene variants are exposed to an increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicities. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preemptive DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC.

METHODS

Overall survival of DPYD wild-type patients who received a standard dose and variant carriers treated with a reduced dose were analyzed by parametric survival models. A decision tree and a partitioned survival analysis model with a lifetime horizon were designed, taking the Iranian healthcare perspective. Input parameters were extracted from the literature or expert opinion. To address parameter uncertainty, scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the genotype-guided treatment strategy was cost-saving ($41.7). Nevertheless, due to a possible reduction in the survival of patients receiving reduced-dose regimens, it was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years (9.45 vs 9.28). In sensitivity analyses, the prevalence of DPYD variants had the most significant impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The genotyping strategy would remain cost-saving, as long as the genotyping cost is < $49 per test. In a scenario in which we assumed equal efficacy for the 2 strategies, genotyping was the dominant strategy, associated with less costs (∼$1) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.1292).

CONCLUSIONS

DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC is cost-saving from the perspective of the Iranian health system.

Budget impact and transferability of cost-effectiveness of DPYD testing in metastatic breast cancer in three health systems

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of introducing extended DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients in the UK, The Netherlands and Hungary were examined. DPYD testing with ToxNav© was cost-effective in all three countries. In the UK and The Netherlands, the ToxNav strategy led to more quality-adjusted life years and fewer costs to the health systems compared with no genetic testing and standard dosing of capecitabine/5-fluorouracil. In Hungary, the ToxNav strategy produced more quality-adjusted life years at a higher cost compared with no testing and standard dose. The ToxNav strategy was found to offer budget savings in the UK and in The Netherlands, while in Hungary it resulted in additional budget costs.

Cost-effectiveness of extended DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ToxNav©, a multivariant genetic test, to screen for DPYD followed by personalized chemotherapy dosing for metastatic breast cancer in the UK compared with no testing followed by standard dose, standard of care. In the main analysis, ToxNav was dominant over standard of care, producing 0.19 additional quality-adjusted life years and savings of £78,000 per patient over a lifetime. The mean additional quality-adjusted life years per person from 1000 simulations was 0.23 savings (95% CI: 0.22-0.24) at £99,000 (95% CI: £95-102,000). Varying input parameters independently by range of 20% was unlikely to change the results in the main analysis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed ~97% probability of the ToxNav strategy to be dominant.

Capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: A pharmacogenetic study beyond DPYD

AIM OF THE STUDY

Occurrence of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) during capecitabine treatment often results in treatment interruptions (26 %) or treatment discontinuation (17 %), and can severely decrease quality of life. In this study, we investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in capecitabine metabolism - other than DPYD - are associated with an increased risk for capecitabine-induced HFS.

METHODS

Patients treated with capecitabine according to standard of care were enrolled after providing written informed consent for genotyping purposes. Prospectively collected blood samples were used to extract genomic DNA, which was subsequently genotyped for SNPs in CES1, CES2 and CDA. SNPs and clinical baseline factors that were univariably associated with HFS with P ≤ 0.10, were tested in a multivariable model using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 446 patients eligible for analysis, 146 (32.7 %) developed HFS, of whom 77 patients (17.3 %) experienced HFS ≥ grade 2. In the multivariable model, CES1 1165-33 C>A (rs2244613, minor allele frequency 19 %) and CDA 266 + 242 A>G (rs10916825, minor allele frequency 35 %) variant allele carriers were at higher risk of HFS ≥ grade 2 (OR 1.888; 95 %CI 1.075-3.315; P = 0.027 and OR 1.865; 95 %CI 1.087-3.200; P = 0.024, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that CES1 1165-33 C>A and CDA 266 + 242 A>G are significantly associated with HFS grade 2 and grade 3 in patients treated with capecitabine. Prospective studies should assess whether this increased risk can be mitigated in carriers of these SNPs, when pre-emptive genotyping is being followed by dose adjustment or by alternative treatment by a fluoropyrimidine that is not substrate to CES1, such as S1.

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.

DPYD genotyping and predicting fluoropyrimidine toxicity: where do we stand?

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are antineoplastic drugs widely used in the treatment of various solid tumors. Nearly 30% of patients treated with FP chemotherapy experience severe FP-related toxicity, and in some cases, toxicity can be fatal. Patients with reduced activity of DPD, the main enzyme responsible for the breakdown of FP, are at an increased risk of experiencing severe FP-related toxicity. While European regulatory agencies and clinical societies recommend pre-treatment DPD deficiency screening for patients starting treatment with FPs, this is not the case with American ones. Pharmacogenomic guidelines issued by several pharmacogenetic organizations worldwide recommend testing four DPD gene (DPYD) risk variants, but these can predict only a proportion of toxicity cases. New evidence on additional common DPYD polymorphisms, as well as identification and functional characterization of rare DPYD variants, could partially address the missing heritability of DPD deficiency and FP-related toxicity.

Poor association between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase ( DPYD ) genotype and fluoropyrimidine‐induced toxicity in an Asian population

OBJECTIVE

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) genotype is closely associated with fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities in Caucasian population and European Medicines Agency now recommends DPYD genotype-based FP dosing strategy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The current study aimed to investigate their impact on FP-related toxicities in an Asian population using genome-wide association study (GWAS) data set from 1364 patients with colon cancer.

RESULTS

Among 82 variants registered in the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, 74 DPYD variants were directly genotyped in GWAS cohort; however, only 7 nonsynonymous DPYD variants (CPIC variants) were identified and none of the four recurrent DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A) were included. Seven CPIC variants were investigated for their association with the incidence of FP-related toxicities; however, none of these variants revealed a significant correlation with FP-related toxicities.

CONCLUSION

These data suggested that the DPYD genotype registered in CPIC plays a minor role in FP-related toxicities in an Asian population.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.

Assessment of the Clinical Utility of Pretreatment DPYD Testing for Patients Receiving Fluoropyrimidine Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Patients who carry pathogenic variants in DPYD have higher systemic fluoropyrimidine (FP) concentrations and greater risk of severe and fatal FP toxicity. Pretreatment DPYD testing and DPYD-guided FP dosing to reduce toxicity and health care costs is recommended by European clinical oncology guidelines and has been adopted across Europe, but has not been recommended or adopted in the United States. The cochairs of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for colon cancer treatment explained their concerns with recommending pretreatment DPYD testing, particularly the risk that reduced FP doses in DPYD carriers may reduce treatment efficacy.

METHODS

This special article uses previously published frameworks for assessing the clinical utility of cancer biomarker tests, including for germline indicators of toxicity risk, to assess the clinical utility of pretreatment DPYD testing, with a particular focus on the risk of reducing treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

There is no direct evidence of efficacy reduction, and the available indirect evidence demonstrates that DPYD-guided FP dosing results in similar systemic FP exposure and toxicity compared with standard dosing in noncarriers, and is well calibrated to the maximum tolerated dose, strongly suggesting there is minimal risk of efficacy reduction.

CONCLUSION

This article should serve as a call to action for clinicians and clinical guidelines committees in the United States to re-evaluate the clinical utility of pretreatment DPYD testing. If clinical utility has not been demonstrated, further dialogue is needed to clarify what additional evidence is needed and which of the available study designs, also described within this article, would be appropriate. Clinical guideline recommendations for pretreatment DPYD testing would increase clinical adoption and ensure that all patients receive maximally safe and effective FP treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of DPYD Genotyping Prior to Fluoropyrimidine-based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy substantially reduces recurrence and mortality after resection of stage 3 colon cancer. While standard doses of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine are safe for most patients, the risk of severe toxicity is increased for the approximately 6% of patients with dihydropyimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency caused by pathogenic DPYD gene variants. Pre-treatment screening for pathogenic DPYD gene variants reduces severe toxicity but has not been widely adopted in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, covering the c.1129-5923C>G (HapB3), c.1679T>G (*13), c.1905+1G>A (*2A), and c.2846A>T gene variants. We used a Markov model with a 5-year horizon, taking a United States healthcare perspective. Simulated patients with pathogenic DPYD gene variants received reduced-dose fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DPYD genotyping.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening for DPD deficiency, DPYD genotyping increased per-patient costs by $78 and improved survival by 0.0038 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to an ICER of $20,506/QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, The ICER exceeded $50,000 per QALY when the cost of the DPYD genotyping assay was greater than $286. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY DPYD genotyping was preferred to no screening in 96.2% of iterations.

CONCLUSION

Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping is a cost-effective strategy for preventing infrequent but severe and sometimes fatal toxicities of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of toxicity and treatment outcomes with pharmacogenetic-guided dosing compared to standard of care BSA-based fluoropyrimidine dosing

BACKGROUND

Serious and potentially life-threatening toxicities can occur following 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine exposure. Patients carrying Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) variant alleles associated with decreased enzymatic function are at a greater risk of early/severe 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine toxicity. The objective of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes between Pharmacogenetics Guided Dosing (PGD) versus non-PGD and within PGD (DPYD variant allele carriers versus wild type).

METHODS

A systematic review/meta-analysis of original publications indexed in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) library from inception to 7-Dec-2020. Eligible studies evaluated at least one pre-defined treatment outcome measures (toxicity/hospitalisations/survival/overall response/quality of life).

RESULTS

Of 1090 identified publications, 17 met predefined eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis observed reduced incidence of grade 3/4 overall toxicity (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.32 [95% Cl 0.27-0.39], p < 0.00001) and grade 3/4 diarrhoea (RR 0.38 [95% Cl 0.24-0.61], p < 0.0001) among PGD versus non-PGD cohorts. Within PGD cohorts, there was no statistical differences for overall response rates (complete/partial) (RR 1.31 [95% Cl 0.93-1.85], p = 0.12). Similar results were found with stable disease (RR 1.27 [95% Cl 0.66-2.44], p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

PGD improves patient outcomes in terms of grade 3/4 toxicity, in particular overall toxicity and diarrhoea, without impacting on treatment response.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study is registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020223768.

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.

Modern developments in germline pharmacogenomics for oncology prescribing

The integration of genomic data into personalized treatment planning has revolutionized oncology care. Despite this, patients with cancer remain vulnerable to high rates of adverse drug events and medication inefficacy, affecting prognosis and quality of life. Pharmacogenomics is a field seeking to identify germline genetic variants that contribute to an individual's unique drug response. Although there is widespread integration of genomic information in oncology, somatic platforms, rather than germline biomarkers, have dominated the attention of cancer providers. Patients with cancer potentially stand to benefit from improved integration of both somatic and germline genomic information, especially because the latter may complement treatment planning by informing toxicity risk for drugs with treatment-limiting tolerabilities and narrow therapeutic indices. Although certain germline pharmacogenes, such as TPMT, UGT1A1, and DPYD, have been recognized for decades, recent attention has illuminated modern potential dosing implications for a whole new set of anticancer agents, including targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates, as well as the discovery of additional genetic variants and newly relevant pharmacogenes. Some of this information has risen to the level of directing clinical action, with US Food and Drug Administration label guidance and recommendations by international societies and governing bodies. This review is focused on key new pharmacogenomic evidence and oncology-specific dosing recommendations. Personalized oncology care through integrated pharmacogenomics represents a unique multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists, laboratory science, bioinformatics, pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists, and genetic counselors, among others. The authors posit that expanded consideration of germline genetic information can further transform the safe and effective practice of oncology in 2022 and beyond.

DPYD*7 as a Predictor of Severe Fluoropyrimidine-Related Adverse Events

PURPOSE

Around 20%-30% of patients treated with fluoropyrimidines develop severe treatment-related adverse events (AEs). These are mainly caused by deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, its main metabolizing enzyme. The DPYD*7 variant allele contains a frameshift mutation that leads to absence of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. Clinical studies on this variant in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines are lacking because of its low minor allelic frequency. However, the DPYD*7 minor allelic frequency is 56-times higher in the Dutch compared with the global population. This allowed us to evaluate fluoropyrimidine tolerability in DPYD*7 variant allele carriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with standard-of-care fluoropyrimidine who were pretreatment DPYD genotyped for DPYD*2A, *13, 2846A>T, and 1236G>A single-nucleotide polymorphisms were included for analyses. Patients were additionally screened for the DPYD*7 allele (rs72549309, 295-298delTCAT). AEs were graded if they worsened from baseline, according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. AEs ≥ grade 3 were considered severe.

RESULTS

From 3,748 patients, we found 13 patients carrying heterozygous DPYD*7. Relevant clinical data were available for 11 patients. All patients developed fluoropyrimidine-related AEs, of which five patients developed severe AEs (46%). From these five patients, three patients were started with 65% or 50% of standard dose, but apparently still developed severe toxicity. Because of severe AEs, three patients discontinued treatment prematurely (one patient already started with 50% of standard dose) and one patient who started with 50% of standard dose was further reduced to 35% of standard dose.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the clinical consequences of carrying the DPYD*7 variant allele were confirmed as 46% of the patients developed severe AEs, even in the presence of initial dose reductions. This underlines the need for prospective studies investigating the required fluoropyrimidine dose for DPYD*7 carriers.

Testing for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency to Individualize 5-Fluorouracil Therapy

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics-Guided Prescribing to Prevent Gene-Drug-Related Deaths: A Decision-Analytic Model

Aim: Prospective studies support the clinical impact of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided prescribing to reduce severe and potentially fatal adverse effects. Drug-gene interactions (DGIs) preventing potential drug-related deaths have been categorized as “essential” by the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG). The collective clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of this sub-set is yet undetermined. Therefore, we aim to assess impact and cost-effectiveness of “essential” PGx tests for prevention of gene-drug-related deaths, when adopted nation-wide.

Methods: We used a decision-analytic model to quantify the number and cost per gene-drug-related death prevented, from a 1-year Dutch healthcare perspective. The modelled intervention is a single gene PGx-test for CYP2C19, DPYD, TPMT or UGT1A1 to guide prescribing based on the DPWG recommendations among patients in the Netherlands initiating interacting drugs (clopidogrel, capecitabine, systemic fluorouracil, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, tioguanine or irinotecan).

Results: For 148,128 patients initiating one of seven drugs in a given year, costs for PGx-testing, interpretation, and drugs would increase by €21.4 million. Of these drug initiators, 35,762 (24.1%) would require an alternative dose or drug. PGx-guided prescribing would relatively reduce gene-drug related mortality by 10.6% (range per DGI: 8.1–14.5%) and prevent 419 (0.3% of initiators) deaths a year. Cost-effectiveness is estimated at €51,000 per prevented gene-drug-related death (range per DGI: €-752,000–€633,000).

Conclusion: Adoption of PGx-guided prescribing for “essential” DGIs potentially saves the lives of 0.3% of drug initiators, at reasonable costs.

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency and Implementation of Upfront DPYD Genotyping

Fluoropyrimidines (FP; 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, and tegafur) are a commonly prescribed class of antimetabolite chemotherapies, used for various solid organ malignancies in over 2 million patients globally per annum. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), encoded by the DPYD gene, is the critical enzyme implicated in FP metabolism. DPYD variant genotypes can result in decreased DPD production, leading to the development of severe toxicities resulting in hospitalization, intensive care admission, and even death. Management of toxicity incurs financial burden on both patients and healthcare systems alike. Upfront DPYD genotyping to identify variant carriers allows an opportunity to identify patients who are at high risk to suffer from serious toxicities and allow prospective dose adjustment of FP treatment. This approach has been shown to reduce patient morbidity, as well as improve the cost-effectiveness of managing FP treatment. Upfront DPYD genotyping has been recently endorsed by several countries in Europe and the United Kingdom. This review summarizes current knowledge about DPD deficiency and upfront DPYD genotyping, including clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, with the intent of supporting implementation of an upfront DPYD genotyping service with individualized dose-personalization.

Can upfront DPYD extended variant testing reduce toxicity and associated hospital costs of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy? A propensity score matched analysis of 2022 UK patients

Aim

To independently assess the impact of mandatory testing using an extended DPYD variant panel (ToxNav®) and consequent dose adjustment of Capecitabine/5-FU on recorded quantitative toxicity, symptoms of depression, and hospital costs.

Methods

We used propensity score matching (PSM) to match 466 patients tested with ToxNav® with 1556 patients from a historical cohort, and performed regression analysis to estimate the impact of ToxNav®on toxicity, depression, and hospital costs.

Results

ToxNav® appeared to reduce the likelihood of experiencing moderate (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.45–0.77) and severe anaemia (OR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.33–0.90), and experience of pain for more than 4 days a week (OR: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.30–0.83), while it increased the likelihood of mild neutropenia (OR: 1.73; 95%CI: 1.27–2.35). It also reduced the cost of chemotherapy by 12% (95%CI: 3–31) or £9765, the cost of non-elective hospitalisation by 23% (95%CI: 8–36) or £2331, and the cost of critical care by 21% (95%CI: 2–36) or £1219 per patient. For the DPYD variant associated with critical risk of toxicity (rs3918290), the improved non-elective hospital costs were > £20,000, whereas variants associated with hand-foot syndrome toxicity had no detectable cost improvement.

Conclusion

Upfront testing of DPYD variants appears to reduce the toxicity burden of Capecitabine and 5-FU in cancer patients and can lead to substantial hospital cost savings, only if the dose management of the drugs in response to variants detected is standardised and regulated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09576-3.

Joint Belgian recommendation on screening for DPD-deficiency in patients treated with 5-FU, capecitabine (and tegafur)

OBJECTIVES

Fluoropyrimidines such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), capecitabine and tegafur are drugs that are often used in the treatment of maliginancies. The enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the first and rate limiting enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. Genetic variations within the DPYD gene (encoding for DPD protein) can lead to reduced or absent DPD activity. Treatment of DPD deficient patients with fluoropyrimidines can result in severe and, rarely, fatal toxicity. Screening for DPD deficiency should be implemented in practice.

METHODS

The available methods in routine to screen for DPD deficiency were analyzed and discussed in several group meetings involving members of the oncological, genetic and toxicological societies in Belgium: targeted genotyping based on the detection of 4 DPYD variants and phenotyping, through the measurement of uracil and dihydrouracil/uracil ratio in plasma samples.

RESULTS

The main advantage of targeted genotyping is the existence of prospectively validated genotype-based dosing guidelines. The main limitations of this approach are the relatively low sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency and the fact that this approach has only been validated in Caucasians so far. Phenotyping has a better sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency when performed in the correct analytical conditions and is not dependent on the ethnic origin of the patient.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium, we recommend phenotype or targeted genotype testing for DPD deficiency before starting 5-FU, capecitabine or tegafur. We strongly suggest a stepwise approach using phenotype testing upfront because of the higher sensitivity and the lower cost to society.

The Value of Pharmacogenetics to Reduce Drug-Related Toxicity in Cancer Patients

Many anticancer drugs cause adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that negatively impact safety and reduce quality of life. The typical narrow therapeutic range and exposure-response relationships described for anticancer drugs make precision dosing critical to ensure safe and effective drug exposure. Germline mutations in pharmacogenes contribute to inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs. Patients carrying reduced-activity or loss-of-function alleles are at increased risk for ADRs. Pretreatment genotyping offers a proactive approach to identify these high-risk patients, administer an individualized dose, and minimize the risk of ADRs. In the field of oncology, the most well-studied gene-drug pairs for which pharmacogenetic dosing recommendations have been published to improve safety are DPYD-fluoropyrimidines, TPMT/NUDT15-thiopurines, and UGT1A1-irinotecan. Despite the presence of these guidelines, the scientific evidence showing the benefits of pharmacogenetic testing (e.g., improved safety and cost-effectiveness) and the development of efficient multi-gene genotyping panels, routine pretreatment testing for these gene-drug pairs has not been implemented widely in the clinic. Important considerations required for widespread clinical implementation include pharmacogenetic education of physicians, availability or allocation of institutional resources to build an efficient clinical infrastructure, international standardization of guidelines, uniform adoption of guidelines by regulatory agencies leading to genotyping requirements in drug labels, and development of cohesive reimbursement policies for pretreatment genotyping. Without clinical implementation, the potential of pharmacogenetics to improve patient safety remains unfulfilled.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a qualitative study of barriers to implementation

Background

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach.

Results

Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants.

Conclusions

Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09171-6.

Ethnic Diversity of DPD Activity and the DPYD Gene: Review of the Literature

Pharmacogenomic screening can identify patients with gene variants that predispose them to the development of severe toxicity from fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy. Deficiency of the critical metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) leads to excessive toxicity on exposure to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. This can result in hospitalisation, intensive care admissions and even death. Upfront screening of the gene that encodes for DPD (DPYD) has recently been implemented in regions throughout Europe and the United Kingdom. Current screening evaluates DPYD variants that are well described within Caucasian patient populations and provides genotyped-guided dose adjustment recommendations based upon the presence of these variants. This article reviews the differences in DPYD gene variants within non-Caucasian populations compared to Caucasian populations, with regard to the implications for clinical tolerance of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapies and genotype guided dose adjustment guidelines.

DPYD polymorphisms c.496A>G, c.2194G>A and c.85T>C and risk of severe adverse drug reactions in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine-based protocols

AIMS

Cancer patients with reduced dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity are at increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine (FP)-related adverse events (AE). Guidelines recommend FP dosing adjusted to genotype-predicted DPD activity based on four DPYD variants (rs3918290, rs55886062, rs67376798 and rs56038477). We evaluated the relationship between three further DPYD polymorphisms: c.496A>G (rs2297595), *6 c.2194G>A (rs1801160) and *9A c.85T>C (rs1801265) and the risk of severe AEs.

METHODS

Consecutive FP-treated adult patients were genotyped for "standard" and tested DPYD variants, and for UGT1A1*28 if irinotecan was included, and were monitored for the occurrence of grade ≥3 (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria) vs. grade 0-2 AEs. For each of the tested polymorphisms, variant allele carriers were matched to respective wild type controls (optimal full matching combined with exact matching, in respect to: age, sex, type of cancer, type of FP, DPYD activity score, use of irinotecan/UGT1A1, adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, biological therapy and genotype on the remaining two tested polymorphisms).

RESULTS

Of the 503 included patients (82.3% colorectal cancer), 283 (56.3%) developed grade ≥3 AEs, mostly diarrhoea and neutropenia. Odds of grade ≥3 AEs were higher in c.496A>G variant carriers (n = 127) than in controls (n = 376) [OR = 5.20 (95% CI 1.88-14.3), Bayesian OR = 5.24 (95% CrI 3.06-9.12)]. Odds tended to be higher in c.2194G>A variant carriers (n = 58) than in controls (n = 432) [OR = 1.88 (0.95-3.73), Bayesian OR = 1.90 (1.03-3.56)]. c.85T>C did not appear associated with grade ≥3 AEs (206 variant carriers vs. 284 controls).

CONCLUSION

DPYD c.496A>G and possibly c.2194G>A variants might need to be considered for inclusion in the DPYD genotyping panel.

Consensus of experts from the Spanish Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics Society and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology for the genotyping of DPYD in cancer patients who are candidates for treatment with fluoropyrimidines

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) and oral fluoropyrimidines, such as capecitabine, are widely used in the treatment of cancer, especially gastrointestinal tumors and breast cancer, but their administration can produce serious and even lethal toxicity. This toxicity is often related to the partial or complete deficiency of the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme, which causes a reduction in clearance and a longer half-life of 5-FU. It is advisable to determine if a DPD deficiency exists before administering these drugs by genotyping DPYD gene polymorphisms. The objective of this consensus of experts, in which representatives from the Spanish Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics Society and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology participated, is to establish clear recommendations for the implementation of genotype and/or phenotype testing for DPD deficiency in patients who are candidates to receive fluoropyrimidines. The genotyping of DPYD previous to treatment classifies individuals as normal, intermediate, or poor metabolizers. Normal metabolizers do not require changes in the initial dose, intermediate metabolizers should start treatment with fluoropyrimidines at doses reduced to 50%, and poor metabolizers are contraindicated for fluoropyrimidines.

Technological readiness and implementation of genomic-driven precision medicine for complex diseases

The fields of human genetics and genomics have generated considerable knowledge about the mechanistic basis of many diseases. Genomic approaches to diagnosis, prognostication, prevention and treatment - genomic-driven precision medicine (GDPM) - may help optimize medical practice. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of GDPM of complex diseases across major medical specialties. We focus on technological readiness: how rapidly a test can be implemented into health care. Although these areas of medicine are diverse, key similarities exist across almost all areas. Many medical areas have, within their standards of care, at least one GDPM test for a genetic variant of strong effect that aids the identification/diagnosis of a more homogeneous subset within a larger disease group or identifies a subset with different therapeutic requirements. However, for almost all complex diseases, the majority of patients do not carry established single-gene mutations with large effects. Thus, research is underway that seeks to determine the polygenic basis of many complex diseases. Nevertheless, most complex diseases are caused by the interplay of genetic, behavioural and environmental risk factors, which will likely necessitate models for prediction and diagnosis that incorporate genetic and non-genetic data.

Influence of FPGS, ABCC4, SLC29A1, and MTHFR genes on the pharmacogenomics of fluoropyrimidines in patients with gastrointestinal cancer from the Brazilian Amazon

PURPOSE

Fluoropyrimidines are one of the most used drug class to treat cancer patients, although they show high levels of associated toxicity. This study analyzed 33 polymorphisms in 17 pharmacogenes involved with the pharmacogenomics of fluoropyrimidines, in gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing fluoropyrimidine-based treatment in the Brazilian Amazon.

METHODS

The study population was composed of 216 patients, 92 of whom have an anatomopathological diagnosis of gastric cancer and 124 of colorectal cancer. The single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were genotyped by allelic discrimination using the TaqMan OpenArray Genotyping technology, with a panel of 32 customized assays, run in a QuantStudio ™ 12K Flex Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Life Technologies, Carlsbad USA). Ancestry analysis was performed using 61 autosomal ancestry informative markers (AIMs).

RESULTS

The study population show mean values of 48.1% European, 31.1% Amerindian, and 20.8% African ancestries. A significant risk association for general and severe toxicity was found in the rs4451422 of FPGS (p = 0.001; OR 3.40; CI 95% 1.65-7.00 and p = 0.006; OR 4.63; CI 95% 1.56-13.72, respectively) and the rs9524885 of ABCC4 (p = 0.023; OR 2.74; CI 95% 1.14-6.65 and p = 0.024; OR 5.36; IC 95% 1.24-23.11, respectively) genes. The rs760370 in the SLC29A1 gene (p = 0.009; OR 6.71; CI 95% 1.16-8.21) and the rs1801133 in the MTHFR toxicity (p = 0.023; OR 3.09; CI 95% 1.16-8.21) gene also demonstrated to be significant, although only for severe toxicity. The results found in this study did not have statistics analysis correction.

CONCLUSION

Four polymorphisms of the ABCC4, FPGS, SLC29A1, and MTHFR genes are likely to be potential predictive biomarkers for precision medicine in fluoropyrimidine-based treatments in the population of the Brazilian Amazon, which is constituted by a unique genetic background.

Pharmacogenomic-Guided Therapy in Colorectal Cancer

Approximately 20 drugs have been shown to be effective for the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). These drugs are from several classes of agents and include cytotoxic drugs, therapeutics that target cell signaling pathways at the extracellular and/or intracellular levels, and combination therapies that contain multiple targeted agents and/or cytotoxic compounds. Targeted therapeutics can include monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, and small molecule drugs. The first introduced into clinical use was 5-fluorouracil in the early 1960s and remains the foundation for most CRC treatments in both adjuvant therapy and in advanced (metastatic) treatment regimens. As with other cancers, the consideration of biomarkers has the potential to improve CRC therapy through patient stratification. The biomarkers can include germline genetic markers, tumor-specific genetic markers, immune markers, and other biomarkers that can predict antitumor efficacy or the likelihood of toxicity prior to administration of a specific drug. Consistent with the benefit of considering biomarkers in treatment, many newer targeted therapies are developed and approved simultaneously with a companion diagnostic test to determine efficacy. This review will focus on biomarkers that have demonstrated clinical utility in CRC treatment; however, it is noted that many additional biomarkers have been theorized to contribute to drug response and/or toxicity based on known biological pathways but thus far have not attained widespread use in the clinic. The importance of pretreatment biomarker testing is expected to increase as future drug development will likely continue to focus on the concurrent development of companion diagnostics.

Genomic and epigenomic biomarkers in colorectal cancer: From diagnosis to therapy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite ongoing efforts aimed at increasing screening for CRC and early detection, and development of more effective therapeutic regimens, the overall morbidity and mortality from this malignancy remains a clinical challenge. Therefore, identifying and developing genomic and epigenomic biomarkers that can improve CRC diagnosis and help predict response to current therapies are of paramount importance for improving survival outcomes in CRC patients, sparing patients from toxicity associated with current regimens, and reducing the economic burden associated with these treatments. Although efforts to develop biomarkers over the past decades have achieved some success, the recent availability of high-throughput analytical tools, together with the use of machine learning algorithms, will likely hasten the development of more robust diagnostic biomarkers and improved guidance for clinical decision-making in the coming years. In this chapter, we provide a systematic and comprehensive overview on the current status of genomic and epigenomic biomarkers in CRC, and comment on their potential clinical significance in the management of patients with this fatal malignancy, including in the context of precision medicine.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Individualized Dosing of Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy to Prevent Severe Fluoropyrimidine-Related Toxicity: What Are the Options?

Fluoropyrimidines are widely used in the treatment of several types of solid tumors. Although most often well tolerated, severe toxicity is encountered in ~ 20-30% of the patients. Individualized dosing for these patients can reduce the incidence of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. However, no consensus has been achieved on which dosing strategy is preferred. The most established strategy for individualized dosing of fluoropyrimidines is upfront genotyping of the DPYD gene. Prospective research has shown that DPYD-guided dose-individualization significantly reduces the incidence of severe toxicity and can be easily applied in routine daily practice. Furthermore, the measurement of the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity has shown to accurately detect patients with a DPD deficiency. Yet, because this assay is time-consuming and expensive, it is not widely implemented in routine clinical care. Other methods include the measurement of pretreatment endogenous serum uracil concentrations, the uracil/dihydrouracil-ratio, and the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) degradation rate. These methods have shown mixed results. Next to these methods to detect DPD deficiency, pharmacokinetically guided follow-up of 5-FU could potentially be used as an addition to dosing strategies to further improve the safety of fluoropyrimidines. Furthermore, baseline characteristics, such as sex, age, body composition, and renal function have shown to have a relationship with the development of severe toxicity. Therefore, these baseline characteristics should be considered as a dose-individualization strategy. We present an overview of the current dose-individualization strategies and provide perspectives for a future multiparametric approach.

Preemptive screening of DPYD as part of clinical practice: high prevalence of a novel exon 4 deletion in the Finnish population

Capecitabine is a fluoropyrimidine that is widely used as a cancer drug for the treatment of patients with a variety of cancers. Unfortunately, early onset, severe or life-threatening toxicity is observed in 19-32% of patients treated with capecitabine and 5FU. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the degradation of 5FU and a DPD deficiency has been shown to be a major determinant of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. DPD is encoded by the DPYD gene and some of the identified variants have been described to cause DPD deficiency. Preemptive screening for DPYD gene alterations enables the identification of DPD-deficient patients before administering fluoropyrimidines. In this article, we describe the application of upfront DPD screening in Finnish patients, as a part of daily clinical practice, which was based on a comprehensive DPYD gene analysis, measurements of enzyme activity and plasma uracil concentrations. Almost 8% of the patients (13 of 167 patients) presented with pathogenic DPYD variants causing DPD deficiency. The DPD deficiency in these patients was further confirmed via analysis of the DPD activity and plasma uracil levels. Interestingly, we identified a novel intragenic deletion in DPYD which includes exon 4 in four patients (31% of patients carrying a pathogenic variant). The high prevalence of the exon 4 deletion among Finnish patients highlights the importance of full-scale DPYD gene analysis. Based on the literature and our own experience, genotype preemptive screening should always be used to detect DPD-deficient patients before fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Overcoming barriers to implementing precision dosing with 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine

Despite advances in targeted cancer therapy, the fluoropyrimidines 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and capecitabine continue to play an important role in oncology. Historically, dosing of these drugs has been based on body surface area. This approach has been demonstrated to be an imprecise way to determine the optimal dose for a patient. Evidence in the literature has demonstrated that precision dosing approaches, such as DPD enzyme activity testing and, in the case of intravenous 5FU, pharmacokinetic-guided dosing, can reduce toxicity and yield better patient outcomes. However, despite the evidence, there has not been uniform adoption of these approaches in the clinical setting. When a drug such as 5FU has been used clinically for many decades, it may be difficult to change clinical practice. With the aim of facilitating change of practice, issues and barriers to implementing precision dosing approaches for 5FU and capecitabine are identified and discussed with possible solutions proposed.

Patients carrying DPYD variant alleles have increased risk of severe toxicity and related treatment modifications during fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy

Aim: To evaluate toxicity risk in carriers of four DPYD variants using an institutional genetic repository. Materials & methods: Of over 65,000 patients in the repository, 582 were evaluated for the primary composite end point of grade 3 or higher toxicity or treatment modification due to toxicity. Results: The primary end point was more common in DPYD variant carriers (36.5 vs 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 2.42, 95% CI: 1.05-5.55, p = 0.04), and in patients with decreased DPD activity (≤1 vs 2) (75.6 vs 17.0%, adjusted odds ratio 16.31, 95% CI: 2.64-100.68, p = 0.003). Conclusion: Patients carrying any of the four DPYD variants are at increased risk of severe toxicity or subsequent treatment modifications, suggesting such patients may benefit from genotype-informed treatment.

Implementing DPYD*2A Genotyping in Clinical Practice: The Quebec, Canada, Experience

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines are used in chemotherapy combinations for multiple cancers. Deficient dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity can lead to severe life-threatening toxicities. DPYD*2A polymorphism is one of the most studied variants. The study objective was to document the impact of implementing this test in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively performed chart reviews of all patients who tested positive for a heterozygous or homozygous DPYD*2A mutation in samples obtained from patients throughout the province of Quebec, Canada.

RESULTS

During a period of 17 months, 2,617 patients were tested: 25 patients tested positive. All were White. Twenty-four of the 25 patients were heterozygous (0.92%), and one was homozygous (0.038%). Data were available for 20 patients: 15 were tested upfront, whereas five were identified after severe toxicities. Of the five patients confirmed after toxicities, all had grade 4 cytopenias, 80% grade ≥3 mucositis, 20% grade 3 rash, and 20% grade 3 diarrhea. Eight patients identified with DPYD*2A mutation prior to treatment received fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy at reduced initial doses. The average fluoropyrimidine dose intensity during chemotherapy was 50%. No grade ≥3 toxicities were observed. DPYD*2A test results were available in an average of 6 days, causing no significant delays in treatment initiation.

CONCLUSION

Upfront genotyping before fluoropyrimidine-based treatment is feasible in clinical practice and can prevent severe toxicities and hospitalizations without delaying treatment initiation. The administration of chemotherapy at reduced doses appears to be safe in patients heterozygous for DPYD*2A.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Fluoropyrimidines are part of chemotherapy combinations for multiple cancers. Deficient dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity can lead to severe life-threatening toxicities. This retrospective analysis demonstrates that upfront genotyping of DPYD before fluoropyrimidine-based treatment is feasible in clinical practice and can prevent severe toxicities and hospitalizations without delaying treatment initiation. This approach was reported previously, but insufficient data concerning its application in real practice are available. This is likely the first reported experience of systematic DPYD genotyping all over Canada and North America as well.

The Road so Far in Colorectal Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Are We Closer to Individualised Treatment?

In recent decades, survival rates in colorectal cancer have improved greatly due to pharmacological treatment. However, many patients end up developing adverse drug reactions that can be severe or even life threatening, and that affect their quality of life. These remain a limitation, as they may force dose reduction or treatment discontinuation, diminishing treatment efficacy. From candidate gene approaches to genome-wide analysis, pharmacogenomic knowledge has advanced greatly, yet there is still huge and unexploited potential in the use of novel technologies such as next-generation sequencing strategies. This review summarises the road of colorectal cancer pharmacogenomics so far, presents considerations and directions to be taken for further works and discusses the path towards implementation into clinical practice.

The adjuvant use of capecitabine for residual disease following pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer: Challenges applying CREATE-X to a US population

INTRODUCTION

The CREATE-X study, conducted in Japan and South Korea, established capecitabine as an adjuvant treatment option for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease (RD) following neoadjuvant anthracycline or taxane-based chemotherapy. However, there are no reports on the tolerability and outcomes of adjuvant capecitabine in the US setting following publication of the CREATE-X data.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected treatment and tolerability data from the medical records of the first 23 TNBC patients who received adjuvant capecitabine for RD post neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution. Disease-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The median starting dosage of capecitabine was 1871 mg/m²/day, most commonly divided into two daily doses on days 1-14 of each 21 day cycle. 34.8% of patients completed the treatment as prescribed. Side effects associated with treatment were common with 69.6% of patients experiencing hand-foot syndrome, 39.1% of patients experiencing diarrhea, and 13.0% of patients requiring hospitalization for side effects. Of 23 patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine, 34.8% completed the planned dose, 30.4% completed with dose reduction, and 34.8% discontinued early. At a median follow-up time of 14 months, the median disease-free survival was 22 months, with 30.4% of patients experiencing recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Tolerability was poor overall compared to the CREATE-X cohort. Administering adjuvant capecitabine for TNBC patients with residual disease in the United States is challenging given differences in tolerability. More research is needed to understand how poor tolerability will affect the efficacy of this approach in the US population.

DPYD and UGT1A1 Pharmacogenetic Testing in Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies: An Overview of the Evidence and Considerations for Clinical Implementation

Gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies are among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide. Despite the introduction of targeted and immunotherapy agents in the treatment landscape, cytotoxic agents, such as fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan, remain as the cornerstone of chemotherapy for many of these tumors. Pharmacogenetics (PGx) is a rapidly evolving field that accounts for interpatient variability in drug metabolism to predict therapeutic response and toxicity. Given the significant incidence of severe treatment-related adverse events associated with cytotoxic agents, utilizing PGx can allow clinicians to better anticipate drug tolerability while minimizing treatment interruptions or delays. In this review, the PGx profiles of drug-gene pairs with potential impact in GI malignancy therapy - DPYD-5-fluorouracil/capecitabine and UGT1A1-irinotecan - and the available clinical evidence of their roles in reducing severe adverse events are discussed. Considerations for clinical implementation, such as optimal laboratory workflows, electronic health record integration, and stakeholder engagement, as well as provider education, are addressed. Last, exploratory PGx markers in GI malignancy treatment are described. As the PGx knowledge base rapidly evolves, pharmacists will be vital in leveraging their pharmacology knowledge and clinical skills to implement PGx testing in the clinic.

Germline and Somatic Pharmacogenomics to Refine Rectal Cancer Patients Selection for Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by radical surgery is the standard of care for patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC). Current selection for nCRT is based on clinical criteria regardless of any molecular marker. Pharmacogenomics may be a useful strategy to personalize and optimize nCRT in LARC. This review aims to summarize the most recent and relevant findings about the role of germline and somatic pharmacogenomics in the prediction of nCRT outcome in patients with LARC, discussing the state of the art of their application in the clinical practice. A systematic literature search of the PubMed database was completed to identify relevant English-language papers published up to January 2020. The chemotherapeutic backbone of nCRT is represented by fluoropyrimidines, mainly metabolized by DPD (Dihydro-Pyrimidine Dehydrogenase, DPYD). The clinical impact of testing DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, c.2846A > T and c.1236G > A-HapB3 before a fluoropyrimidines administration to increase treatment safety is widely acknowledged. Other relevant target genes are TYMS (Thymidylate Synthase) and MTHFR (Methylene-Tetrahydro-Folate Reductase), whose polymorphisms were mainly studied as potential markers of treatment efficacy in LARC. A pivotal role of a TYMS polymorphism in the gene promoter region (rs34743033) was reported and was pioneeringly used to guide nCRT treatment in a phase II study. The pharmacogenomic analysis of other pathways mostly involved in the cellular response to radiation damage, as the DNA repair and the activation of the inflammatory cascade, provided less consistent results. A high rate of somatic mutation in genes belonging to PI3K (Phosphatidyl-Inositol 3-Kinase) and MAPK (Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase) pathways, as BRAF (V-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1), KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma viral oncogene homolog), NRAS (Neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog), PIK3CA (Phosphatidyl-Inositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-Kinase, Catalytic Subunit Alpha), as well as TP53 (Tumor Protein 53) was reported in LARC. Their pharmacogenomic role, already defined in colorectal cancer, is under investigation in LARC with promising results concerning specific somatic mutations in KRAS and TP53, as predictors of tumor response and prognosis. The availability of circulating tumor DNA in plasma may also represent an opportunity to monitor somatic mutations in course of therapy.

Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of structural and methodological assumptions in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatments, and discuss their potential impact on health economic outcome estimates.

METHODS

Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation Database) were searched on 26 August 2019 for model-based full health economic evaluations of systemic mCRC treatment using a combination of free-text terms and subject headings. Full-text publications in English were eligible for inclusion if they were published in or after the year 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of included publications. Study selection, appraisal and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1418 publications, of which 54 were included, representing 51 unique studies. Most studies focused on first-line treatment (n = 29, 57%), followed by third-line treatment (n = 13, 25%). Model structures were health-state driven (n = 27, 53%), treatment driven (n = 19, 37%), or a combination (n = 5, 10%). Cohort-level state-transition modelling (STM) was the most common technique (n = 33, 65%), followed by patient-level STM and partitioned survival analysis (both n = 6, 12%). Only 15 studies (29%) reported some sort of model validation. Health economic outcomes for specific strategies differed substantially between studies. For example, survival following first-line treatment with fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin ranged from 1.21 to 7.33 years, with treatment costs ranging from US$8125 to US$126,606.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic mCRC treatments have adopted varied modelling methods and structures, resulting in substantially different outcomes. As models generally focus on first-line treatment without consideration of downstream treatments, there is a profound source of structural uncertainty implying that the cost-effectiveness of treatments across the mCRC pathway remains uncertain.

Pharmacogenomics of anticancer drugs: Personalising the choice and dose to manage drug response

The field of pharmacogenomics has made great strides in oncology over the last 20 years and indeed a significant number of pre-emptive genetic tests are now routinely undertaken prior to anticancer drug administration. Many of these gene-drug interactions are the fruits of candidate gene and genome-wide association studies, which have largely focused on common genetic variants (allele frequency>1%). Examples where there is clinical utility include genotyping or phenotyping for G6PD to prevent rasburicase-induced RBC haemolysis, and TPMT to prevent thiopurine-induced bone marrow suppression. Other associations such as CYP2D6 status in determining the efficacy of tamoxifen are more controversial because of contradictory evidence from different sources, which has led to variability in the implementation of testing. As genomic technology becomes ever cheaper and more accessible, we must look to the additional data our genome can provide to explain interindividual variability in anticancer drug response. Clearly genes do not act on their own and it is therefore important to investigate genetic factors in conjunction with clinical factors, interacting concomitant drug therapies and other factors such as the microbiome, which can all affect drug disposition. Taking account of all of these factors, in conjunction with the somatic genome, is more likely to provide better predictive accuracy in determining anticancer drug response, both efficacy and safety. This review summarises the existing knowledge related to the pharmacogenomics of anticancer drugs and discusses areas of opportunity for further advances in personalisation of therapy in order to improve both drug safety and efficacy.