Case report: 5-Fluorouracil treatment in patient with an important partial DPD deficiency

Esophageal cancer is a cancer with poor prognosis and the standard 1^st line treatment for metastatic or recurrent EC is systemic chemotherapy with doublet chemotherapy based on platinum and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). However, 5-FU could be a source of severe treatment-related toxicities due to deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). In this case report, a 74-year-old man with metastatic esophageal cancer was found to have partial DPD deficiency based on uracilemia measurements (about 90 ng/mL). Despite this, 5-FU was safely administered thanks to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The case report highlights the importance of TDM in administering 5-FU to patients with partial DPD deficiency, as it allows individualized dosing and prevents severe toxicity.

Precision fluoropyrimidines dosing in a compound heterozygous variant carrier of the DPYD gene: a case report

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) form still nowadays the backbone of chemotherapic schemes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Inter-patient variability of the toxicity profile of FPs may be partially accounted for by variable expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). DPD rate activity is genetically determined by its extremely polymorphic coding gene DPYD. In spite of pharmacogenetic guideline-directed-dosing of FPs based regimens treating carrier of multiple variants of DPYD gene remains still challenging.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of a 48-year-old Caucasian man, compound heterozygous variant carrier of the DPYD gene (HapB3 and c.2194G>A) who had a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the left colon and was safely treated with a pharmacogenetic-guided 25% dose reduction of the standard CAP adjuvant treatment. Compound heterozygosis may have been responsible for an earlier over exposure to CAP resulting into low-grade toxicity with an anticipated median time to toxicity of the c.2194G>A variant to the 4th vs. 6th cycles. Some haplotypes of DPYD variants may have an advantage in terms of survival compared to wild-type patients. Our patient may also have benefitted from compound heterozygosis, as shown by no evidence of disease (NED) at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of DPYD intermediate metabolizer compound heterozygous HapB3 and c.2194G>A variant carries should be managed by a multidisciplinary team with a dose reduction ranging from 25 to 50% to maintain effectiveness and close clinical monitoring for early detection of ADRs.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping has added value when combined with DPYD genotyping in predicting fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study in which treatment and toxicity data were collected of 228 patients genotyped for four DPYD variants and phenotyped using an ex vivo peripheral blood mononuclear cell assay.

RESULTS

Severe toxicity occurred in 25% of patients with a variant and normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, in 21% of patients without a variant and with decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, and in 29% of patients without a variant and with normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity (controls). The majority of patients with a variant or a decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity received an initial dose reduction (68% and 53% vs 19% in controls) and had a lower mean dose intensity (75% and 81% vs 91% in controls). Fifty percent of patients with a variant and decreased enzyme activity experienced severe toxicity, despite the lowest initial dose and whole treatment dose intensity. They also experienced more grade 4/5 toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that a combined genotype-phenotype approach could be useful to identify patients at increased risk for fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity (e.g. patients with a variant and decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity). Because the group sizes are too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences, this warrants further research in a prospective study in a larger cohort.

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.

Reversible Toxic Encephalopathy Involving the Cerebellum and Subcortical White Matter Attributed to Capecitabine

Capecitabine is an anticancer drug related to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) that is used to treat multiple cancers. Little is known about the central nervous system toxicity of capecitabine owing to the low frequency of occurrence. In this report we describe a rare case of capecitabine-related toxic encephalopathy involving the cerebellum and subcortical white matter. A review of the literature showed that most reported cases have shown excellent recovery within a few days of capecitabine termination. Whether uridine triacetate is a reasonable treatment choice for patients with life-threatening toxic encephalopathy depends on the availability of reliable clinical data. Prescreening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype variants and detection of 5-FU degradation rate prior to capecitabine treatment may become an effective way to avoid toxic reactions by regulating the therapeutic dose for each patient, which remains to be investigated and needs more clinical data to support.

Predictive and prognostic biomarkers with therapeutic targets in colorectal cancer: A 2021 update on current development, evidence, and recommendation

Although therapeutically actionable molecular alterations are widely distributed across many cancer types, only a handful of them show evidence of clinical utility and are recommended for routine clinical practice in the management of cancers of colon and rectum (CRC). This 2021 update aims to provide a succinct summary on the use of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers (expanded RAS, BRAF, microsatellite-high [MSI-H] or deficient mismatch repair [dMMR], neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase [NTRK] fusion genes, and human epidermal growth factor receptor type II [HER2] gene amplification) associated with CRC. Therapeutic implications of each relevant predictive or prognostic biomarker for patients with CRC are described, along with discussion on new developments on (1) biomarker-driven therapies such as testing of BRAF, MLH1 promoter methylation and MMR germline genes in differentiating sporadic CRC or hereditary conditions such as Lynch syndrome; (2) first-line use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic CRC; (3) risk stratification and therapy selection based on primary tumor location (left-sided vs. right-sided colon cancer); (3) atypical BRAF mutations; (4) use of EGFR directed therapy in the perioperative oligometastatic disease setting; (5) re-challenge of EGFR directed therapy and (6) personalizing therapy of fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan based on new evidence in pharmacogenomic testing. Data are collected and analyzed from available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments with known therapeutic targets in CRC, which may be associated with predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers. Discussions are presented in an application-based format, with goal to empower pharmacists or other clinicians to gain awareness and understanding in biomarker-driven cancer therapy issues.

Severe toxicity of capecitabine in a patient with DPD deficiency after a safe FEC-100 experience: why we should test DPD deficiency in all patients before high-dose fluoropyrimidines

We report the case of a 44-year-old patient who experienced severe toxicity while being treated with capecitabine at standard dose for metastatic breast cancer. As the patient had already received 5-FU within the FEC protocol (5-FU 500 mg/m², epirubicin 100 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m²) 10 years ago without experiencing any severe adverse event, no DPD deficiency testing was performed before capecitabine treatment. Nevertheless, she experienced severe diarrhea and grade 2 hand-foot syndrome from the first cycle, forcing her to stop the treatment. Phenotypic and genotypic investigation of DPD activity revealed that the patient had a partial deficiency and had therefore been exposed to a higher risk of developing severe toxicities on fluoropyrimidines. This case proves that tolerance to low-dose fluoropyrimidines does not preclude DPD deficiency and the occurrence of severe toxicities if higher doses of fluoropyrimidines are used as a second-line treatment. It emphasizes the role of DPD phenotyping testing based on uracilemia in patients scheduled for fluoropyrimidine drugs, even if previous courses with low-dose 5-FU were safely administered.

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.

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.

Automatic quantification of uracil and dihydrouracil in plasma

Fluoropyrimidines-based chemotherapies are the backbone in the treatment of many cancers. However, the use of 5-fluorouracil and its oral pre-prodrug, capecitabine, is associated with an important risk of toxicity. This toxicity is mainly due to a deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). This deficiency may be detected by using a phenotypic approach that consists in the measurement of uracilemia or the calculation of dihydrouracil (UH₂)/uracil (U) ratio. For uracilemia, a threshold value of 16 ng/ml has been proposed for partial deficiency, while a value of 150 ng/ml has been proposed for complete deficiency. We have developed a rapid, accurate and fully-automated procedure for the quantification of U and UH₂ in plasma. Sample extraction was carried out by a programmable liquid handler directly coupled to a liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) system. The method was validated according to the EMA guidelines and ISO 15189 requirements and was applied to real patient samples (n = 64). The limit of quantification was 5 and 10 ng/ml for U and UH₂ respectively. Imprecision and inaccuracy were less than 15% for inter and intra-assay tests. Comparison with dedicated routine method showed excellent correlation. An automated procedure perfectly fulfills the need of low inaccuracy and CVs at the threshold values (less than 5% at 16 ng/ml) and is highly suitable for the characterization of DPD deficiency. Automatization should guaranty reliable and robust performances by minimizing the sources of variation such as volume inaccuracies, filtration or manual extraction related errors.

Cytomegalovirus enterocolitis in a patient with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency after capecitabine treatment: A case report

INTRODUCTION

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is widely used for cancer treatment. The reduced activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the key enzyme in 5-FU inactivation, increases a patient's risk of developing severe 5-FU related toxicity. However, screening for DPD deficiency is rarely performed before 5-FU administration.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Our patient was a 69-year-old man with rectal cancer (T2N1bM0 stage IIIA) who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection. He developed severe neutropenia and diarrhea 15 days after the administration of capecitabine for adjuvant chemotherapy, and was admitted to our hospital. Four days after admission, he was transferred to the intensive care unit for sepsis. DPD protein screening revealed DPD deficiency. On day 27, massive melena suddenly appeared. He died of continual bleeding 41 days after admission. Pathological autopsy revealed cytomegalovirus enterocolitis.

DISCUSSION

The administration of 5-FU to patients with DPD deficiency is lethal. Genotypic and phenotypic assessments are reliable tests for DPD deficiency. A genetic study can effectively screen for DPD deficiency; however, its use has not been established in the national insurance system. Patients with DPD deficiency tend to develop severe neutropenia, so clinicians should pay attention to opportunistic infections such as cytomegalovirus enterocolitis.

CONCLUSION

Screening for DPD deficiency is necessary prior to 5-FU administration.

UPFRONT DPD DEFICIENCY DETECTION TO SECURE 5-FU ADMINISTRATION: PART 2- APPLICATION TO HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER PATIENTS

Background

Upfront screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency in patients scheduled for 5-FU should help reduce the risk of toxicities by preventive adaptive dosing. Our group has developed a simple functional testing categorizing patients upon their DPD status, i.e. extensive metabolizer (EM) or poor metabolizer (PM) patients, using UH2/U ratio measurement in plasma as a surrogate for DPD activity. 5-FU dosing can then be tailored according to DPD deficiency status.

Objectives

We present here an observational study of this strategy implemented in routine clinical practice when treating head-and-neck cancer patients.

Results

A total of 218 evaluable adult patients were treated with a 5-FU-regimen, with DPD-based adaptive dosing. Among them, 20 (9%) were identified as PM and received subsequently a 20-50% reduced dosing of 5-FU as compared with EM patients (2102 ±254 mg VS. 2577 ±353mg, p<0.001 ttest). Gender (Female) was associated with higher risk for being PM (p=0.01, Pearson's Chi squared test). Overall, early severe toxicities were seen only in 5% of patients, all being EM with standard dosing. Similarly, overall severe toxicities were observed in 12.8% of patients only, both figures being markedly lower than usually reported with standard 5-FU. Despite the average -20% reduction in 5-FU dosing between PM and EM patients, clinical efficacy was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.2774, chi-square test).

Conclusion

This study shows that 5-FU-related toxicities can be greatly reduced in routine clinical practice by the upfront detection of DPD deficient patients with simple adaptive dosing strategy.