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

INTRODUCTION: In April 2019, French authorities mandated dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) screening, specifically testing uracilemia, to mitigate the risk of toxicity associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. However, this subject is still of debate as there is no consensus on a standardized DPD deficiency screening test. We conducted a real-life retrospective study with the aim of assessing the impact of DPD screening on the occurrence of severe toxicity and exploring the potential benefits of complete genotyping using next-generation sequencing. METHODS: All adult patients consecutively treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or its oral prodrug at six cancer centers between March 2018 and February 2019 were considered for inclusion. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening included gene encoding DPD (DPYD) genotyping using complete genome sequencing and DPD phenotyping (uracilemia or dihydrouracilemia/uracilemia ratio) or both tests. Associations between each DPD screening method and (i) severe (grade ≥3) early toxicity and (ii) fluoropyrimidine dose reduction in the second chemotherapy cycle were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Furthermore, we assessed the concordance between DPD genotype and phenotype using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: A total of 551 patients were included. Most patients were tested for DPD deficiency (86%) including DPYD genotyping only (6%), DPD phenotyping only (8%), or both (72%). Complete DPD deficiency was not detected in the study population. Severe early toxicity events were observed in 73 patients (13%), with two patients (0.30%) presenting grade 5 toxicity. Despite the numerically higher toxicity rate in untested patients, the occurrence of severe toxicity was not significantly associated with the DPD screening method (p = 0.69). Concordance between the DPD genotype and phenotype was weak (Cohen's kappa of 0.14). CONCLUSION: Due to insufficient numbers, our study was not able to demonstrate any added value of DPYD genotyping using complete genome sequencing to prevent 5-FU toxicity. The optimal strategy for DPD screening before fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy requires further clinical evaluation.

Salvage Stereotactic Reirradiation for Local Recurrence in the Prostatic Bed After Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Management of local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) in the prostatic bed after radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) reirradiation in this setting and evaluate prognostic factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a large multicenter retrospective series that included 117 patients who were treated with salvage SBRT for local recurrence in the prostatic bed after RP and radiotherapy in 11 centers across three countries. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Progression-free survival (PFS; biochemical, clinical, or both) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate-specific antigen nadir +0.2 ng/ml, confirmed by a second increasing measure. The cumulative incidence of late toxicities was estimated using the Kalbfleisch-Prentice method by considering recurrence or death as a competing event. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 19.5 mo. The median SBRT dose was 35 Gy. The median PFS was 23.5 mo (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 17.6-33.2). In the multivariable models, the volume of the recurrence and its contact with the urethrovesical anastomosis were significantly associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR]/10 cm3 = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.96; p = 0.01 and HR = 3.35; 95% CI, 1.38-8.16; p = 0.008, respectively). The 3-yr cumulative incidence of grade ≥2 late GU or GI toxicity was 18% (95% CI, 10-26). In the multivariable analysis, a recurrence in contact with the urethrovesical anastomosis and D2% of the bladder were significantly associated with late toxicities of any grade (HR = 3.65; 95% CI, 1.61-8.24; p = 0.002 and HR/10 Gy = 1.88; 95% CI, 1.12-3.16; p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage SBRT for local recurrence in the prostate bed may offer encouraging control and acceptable toxicity. Therefore, further prospective studies are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy after surgery and radiotherapy allows for encouraging control and acceptable toxicity in locally relapsed prostate cancer.

The Safety and Efficacy of Salvage Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Patients with Intraprostatic Tumor Recurrence After Previous External Radiation Therapy: Phase 1 Results from the GETUG-AFU 31 Study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the best local salvage treatment for prostate cancer recurrence after primary external beam radiotherapy. Prospective data on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are very scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal dose regimen for salvage SBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The present report concerns the phase 1 part of the GETUG-AFU 31 multicenter open-label study. The main inclusion criteria were histologically proven biochemical recurrence, clinical stage T1-T2 upon relapse, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤10 ng/ml prior to salvage SBRT, PSA doubling time >10 mo, and an International Prostate Symptom Score of ≤12. INTERVENTION: Five or six fractions of 6 Gy were delivered using focal SBRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade ≥3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract toxicity, or any grade 4 toxicity (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03) occurring in the first 18 wk following treatment initiation. A time-to-event continual reassessment method was used to select the dose regimen. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-one patients were treated (median [interquartile range] age: 76.8 yr [72.2-80.8]), including 12 at 6 × 6 dose level. No DLT was observed. The acute grade 2 genitourinary tract toxicity rate was 19%. With a median follow-up of 12.3 mo, the estimated cumulative incidence of late grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 41.2% (95% confidence interval: 18.1-63.1%). No grade >2 genitourinary toxicity and no grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity were reported. All treated patients were alive and relapse free at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A 6 × 6 Gy dose regimen was selected for our phase 2 study of salvage SBRT. With a short follow-up period, the level of toxicity appears to be acceptable. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is no consensus on the best local treatment for patients with local relapse after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Prospective data are very scarce. Our early phase trial allowed us to recommend six fractions of 6 Gy using high-precision radiotherapy for further studies.

Identification of several eating habits that mediate the association between eating behaviors and the risk of obesity.

Objective: Eating behaviors play important roles in the development of obesity. A better knowledge of the psychological aspects of eating behaviors in individuals with and without obesity and their consequences on daily eating and lifestyle habits would be informative. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)-R21 assesses the psychometrics of eating behavior. The objectives of the study were to establish which eating habits were or were not associated with TFEQ eating behaviors, and to quantify the extent to which those eating habits mediated the association between TFEQ eating behaviors and obesity risk. Methods: Data were obtained from the Gene and Environment Case-Control Obesity Study from northern France. It included 2237 individuals with obesity and 403 individuals without obesity. Eating behaviors were assessed according to the TFEQ-R21. Two activity levels (physical activity and television watching) and six eating habits (e.g., plate size, having one serving or at least two servings of the main meal, …) were evaluated. Regression and mediation analyses were performed. Results: Higher cognitive restraint, higher uncontrolled eating (UE) and higher emotional eating (EE) were associated with a higher risk of obesity, independently of each other and of age, sex, socio-economic status and physical activity. Cognitive restraint was negatively associated with having at least two servings, while UE and EE were associated with several obesogenic habits such as eating in front of the television or eating at night. Each of these obesogenic habits mediated between 3% and 20% of the association between UE or EE and obesity. Conclusions: Psychological eating behaviors were associated with several lifestyle and eating habits in both individuals with and without obesity. Moreover, some eating habits partially mediated (between 3% and 20%) the association between TFEQ eating behaviors and obesity risk. For clinicians, this study shows that simple, easy-to-ask questions on specific daily eating habits can provide essential information to better understand and manage patients with obesity.