Predicting fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity: turning wish to will, the PAMM-EORTC position

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.

Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives

Background

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) carry around 20% risk of G3-5 toxicity and 0.2-1% risk of death, due to dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency. Several screening approaches exist for predicting toxicity, however there is ongoing debate over which method is best. This study compares 4 screening approaches.

Method

472 patients treated for colorectal, head-and-neck, breast, or pancreatic cancers, who had not been tested pre-treatment for FP toxicity risk, were screened using: DPYD genotyping (G); phenotyping via plasma Uracil (U); phenotyping via plasma-dihydrouracil/uracil ratio (UH₂/U); and a Multi-Parametric Method (MPM) using genotype, phenotype, and epigenetic data. Performance was compared, particularly the inability to detect at-risk patients (false negatives).

Results

False negative rates for detecting G5 toxicity risk were 51.2%, 19.5%, 9.8% and 2.4%, for G, U, UH₂/U and MPM, respectively. False negative rates for detecting G4-5 toxicity risk were 59.8%, 36.1%, 21.3% and 4.7%, respectively. MPM demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) better prediction performance.

Conclusion

MPM is the most effective method for limiting G4-5 toxicity. Its systematic implementation is cost-effective and significantly improves the risk-benefit ratio of FP-treatment. The use of MPM, rather than G or U testing, would avoid nearly 8,000 FP-related deaths per year globally (500 in France), and spare hundreds of thousands from G4 toxicity.

DPYD*6 plays an important role in fluoropyrimidine toxicity in addition to DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T: a comprehensive analysis in 1254 patients

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) is a highly polymorphic gene and classic deficient variants (i.e., c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1679T>G, c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T) are characterized by impaired enzyme activity and risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines. The identification of poor metabolizers by pre-emptive DPYD screening may reduce the rate of ADRs but many patients with wild-type genotype for classic variants may still display ADRs. Therefore, the search for additional DPYD polymorphisms associated with ADRs may improve the safety of treatment with fluoropyrimidines. This study included 1254 patients treated with fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens and divided into cohort 1, which included 982 subjects suffering from gastrointestinal G≥2 and/or hematological G≥3 ADRs, and cohort 2 (control group), which comprised 272 subjects not requiring dose reduction, delay or discontinuation of treatment. Both groups were screened for DPYD variants c.496A>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1601G>A (DPYD*4), c.1627A>G (DPYD*5), c.1679T>G (DPYD*13), c.1896T>C, c.1905 + 1G>A (DPYD*2A), c.2194G>A (DPYD*6), and c.2846A>T to assess their association with toxicity. Genetic analysis in the two cohorts were done by Real-Time PCR of DNA extracted from 3 ml of whole blood. DPYD c.496A>G, c.1601G>A, c.1627A>G, c.1896T>C, and c.2194G>A variants were found in both cohort 1 and 2, while c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T were present only in cohort 1. DPYD c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A/HapB3 were not found. Univariate analysis allowed the selection of c.1905+1G>A, c.2194G>A and c.2846A>T alleles as significantly associated with gastrointestinal and hematological ADRs (p < 0.05), while the c.496A>G variant showed a positive trend of association with neutropenia (p = 0.06). In conclusion, c.2194G>A is associated with clinically-relevant ADRs in addition to the already known c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T variants and should be evaluated pre-emptively to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated ADRs.