Life-time Actionable Pharmacogenetic Drug Use: A Population-based Cohort Study in 86 040 Young People With and Without Mental Disorders in Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: To describe life-time use of current actionable pharmacogenetic (PGx) somatic and psychotropic drugs according to international PGx consortia in people with and without hospital-diagnosed mental disorders in the Danish population. METHODS: Population- and register-based observational drug utilization study in 56 065 individuals with mental disorders, i. e. attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia, and a random, representative sample of 29 975 individuals of the Danish population, born between 1981 and 2005. Individuals were followed from 1995 or birth until 2016 (for a maximum of 22 years). We report prevalence and incidence rates of PGx drug use by age, sex and mental disorders based on redeemed prescriptions between 1995 and 2016. RESULTS: Of the 69 PGx drugs, prescriptions of 39 drugs had been redeemed by the study population by 35 years of age. The use of at least 1 PGx drug varied between 23.1% in males without mental disorders and 97.2% in females with schizophrenia. Males with ADHD or autism were the youngest first-time PGx drug users at a mean of 11.6 years. The mean number of different PGx drugs used was 1.2 in males without mental disorders and 5.6 in individuals with schizophrenia. The prevalence of different PGx drugs linked to more than one gene was 25.3% in males without mental disorders to 94.1% in females with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: PGx drugs are commonly used by younger people, more often by individuals with mental disorders and by females. Panel-based PGx testing could contribute to treatment decisions at a very young age.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation of fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospective safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine treatment can result in severe toxicity in up to 30% of patients and is often the result of reduced activity of the key metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), mostly caused by genetic variants in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). We assessed the effect of prospective screening for the four most relevant DPYD variants (DPYD*2A [rs3918290, c.1905+1G>A, IVS14+1G>A], c.2846A>T [rs67376798, D949V], c.1679T>G [rs55886062, DPYD*13, I560S], and c.1236G>A [rs56038477, E412E, in haplotype B3]) on patient safety and subsequent DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in daily clinical care. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, safety analysis in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands, the study population consisted of adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who were intended to start on a fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil as single agent or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy). Patients with all tumour types for which fluoropyrimidine-based therapy was considered in their best interest were eligible. We did prospective genotyping for DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G), and DPYD wild-type patients were treated according to the current standard of care. The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of severe (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 grade ≥3) overall fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity across the entire treatment duration. We compared toxicity incidence between DPYD variant allele carriers and DPYD wild-type patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and relative risks (RRs) for severe toxicity were compared between the current study and a historical cohort of DPYD variant allele carriers treated with full dose fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (derived from a previously published meta-analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, we enrolled 1181 patients. 78 patients were considered non-evaluable, because they were retrospectively identified as not meeting inclusion criteria, did not start fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, or were homozygous or compound heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers. Of 1103 evaluable patients, 85 (8%) were heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, and 1018 (92%) were DPYD wild-type patients. Overall, fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers (33 [39%] of 85 patients) than in wild-type patients (231 [23%] of 1018 patients; p=0·0013). The RR for severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was 1·31 (95% CI 0·63-2·73) for genotype-guided dosing compared with 2·87 (2·14-3·86) in the historical cohort for DPYD*2A carriers, no toxicity compared with 4·30 (2·10-8·80) in c.1679T>G carriers, 2·00 (1·19-3·34) compared with 3·11 (2·25-4·28) for c.2846A>T carriers, and 1·69 (1·18-2·42) compared with 1·72 (1·22-2·42) for c.1236G>A carriers. INTERPRETATION: Prospective DPYD genotyping was feasible in routine clinical practice, and DPYD genotype-based dose reductions improved patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment. For DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G carriers, a 50% initial dose reduction was adequate. For c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T carriers, a larger dose reduction of 50% (instead of 25%) requires investigation. Since fluoropyrimidines are among the most commonly used anticancer agents, these findings suggest that implementation of DPYD genotype-guided individualised dosing should be a new standard of care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Discovering novel germline genetic variants linked to severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity in- and outside DPYD.

BACKGROUND: The Alpe-DPD study (NCT02324452) demonstrated that prospective genotyping and dose-individualization using four alleles in DPYD (DPYD*2A/rs3918290, c.1236G > A/rs75017182, c.2846A > T/rs67376798 and c.1679 T > G/rs56038477) can mitigate the risk of severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity. However, this could not prevent all toxicities. The goal of this study was to identify additional genetic variants, both inside and outside DPYD, that may contribute to fluoropyrimidine toxicity. METHODS: Biospecimens and data from the Alpe-DPD study were used. Exon sequencing was performed to identify risk variants inside DPYD. In silico and in vitro analyses were used to classify DPYD variants. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) with severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was performed to identify variants outside DPYD. Association with severe toxicity was assessed using matched-pair analyses for the exon sequencing and logistic, Cox, and ordinal regression analyses for GWAS. RESULTS: Twenty-four non-synonymous, frameshift, and splice site DPYD variants were detected in ten of 986 patients. Seven of these variants (c.1670C > T, c.1913 T > C, c.1925 T > C, c.506delC, c.731A > C, c.1740 + 1G > T, c.763 - 2A > G) were predicted to be deleterious. The carriers of either of these variants showed a trend towards a 2.14-fold (95% CI, 0.41-11.3, P = 0.388) increased risk of severe toxicity compared to matched controls (N = 30). After GWAS of 942 patients, no individual single nucleotide polymorphisms achieved genome-wide significance (P ≤ 5 × 10-8), however, five variants were suggestive of association (P < 5 × 10-6) with severe toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Results from DPYD exon sequencing and GWAS analysis did not identify additional genetic variants associated with severe toxicity, which suggests that testing for single markers at a population level currently has limited clinical value. Identifying additional variants on an individual level is still promising to explain fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. In addition, studies with larger samples sizes, in more diverse cohorts are needed to identify potential clinically relevant genetic variants related to severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity.

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

PURPOSE: DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

Clinical Impact of Functional CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 Gene Variants on Treatment with Antidepressants in Young People with Depression: A Danish Cohort Study.

Background: The clinical impact of the functional CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 gene variants on antidepressant treatment in people with depression is not well studied. Here, we evaluate the utility of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in psychiatry by investigating the association between the phenotype status of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19/2D6 enzymes and the one-year risks of clinical outcomes in patients with depression with incident new-use of (es)citalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine. Methods: This study is a population-based cohort study of 17,297 individuals who were born between 1981 and 2005 with a depression diagnosis between 1996 and 2012. Using array-based single-nucleotide-polymorphism genotype data, the individuals were categorized according to their metabolizing status of CYP2C19/CYP2D6 as normal (NM, reference group), ultra-rapid- (UM), rapid- (RM), intermediate- (IM), or poor-metabolizer (PM). The outcomes were treatment switching or discontinuation, psychiatric emergency department contacts, and suicide attempt/self-harm. By using Poisson regression analyses, we have estimated the incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) that were adjusted for covariates and potential confounders, by age groups (<18 (children and adolescents), 19−25 (young adults), and 26+ years (adults)), comparing the outcomes in individuals with NM status (reference) versus the mutant metabolizer status. For statistically significant outcomes, we have calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to genotype (NNG) in order to prevent one outcome. Results: The children and adolescents who were using (es)citalopram with CYP2C19 PM status had increased risks of switching (IRR = 1.64 [95% CI: 1.10−2.43]) and suicide attempt/self-harm (IRR = 2.67 [95% CI; 1.57−4.52]). The young adults with CYP2C19 PM status who were using sertraline had an increased risk of switching (IRR = 2.06 [95% CI; 1.03−4.11]). The young adults with CYP2D6 PM status who were using fluoxetine had an increased risk of emergency department contacts (IRR = 3.28 [95% CI; 1.11−9.63]). No significant associations were detected in the adults. The NNG for preventing one suicide attempt/suicide in the children who were using (es)citalopram was 463, and the NNT was 11. Conclusion: The CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 PM phenotype statuses were associated with outcomes in children, adolescents, and young adults with depression with incident new-use of (es)citalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine, therefore indicating the utility of PGx testing, particularly in younger people, for PGx-guided antidepressant treatment.

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.

Pharmacogenetic genotype and phenotype frequencies in a large Danish population-based case-cohort sample.

Pharmacogenetics aims to improve clinical care by studying the relationship between genetic variation and variable drug response. Large population-based datasets could improve our current understanding of pharmacogenetics from selected study populations. We provide real-world pharmacogenetic frequencies of genotypes and (combined) phenotypes of a large Danish population-based case-cohort sample (iPSYCH2012; data of the Integrative Psychiatric Research consortium). The genotyped sample consists of 77,684 individuals, of which 51,464 individuals had diagnoses of severe mental disorders (SMD case-cohort) and 26,220 were individuals randomly selected from the Danish population (population cohort). Array-based genotype data imputed to 8.4 million genetic variants was searched for a selected pharmacogenetic panel of 42 clinically relevant variants and a CYP2D6 gene deletion and duplication. We identified 19 of 42 variants. Minor allele frequencies (MAFs) were consistent with previously reported MAFs, and did not differ between SMD cases and population cohorts. Almost all individuals carried at least one genetic variant (> 99.9%) and 87% carried three or more genetic variants. When genotypes were translated into phenotypes, also > 99.9% of individuals had at least one divergent phenotype (i.e. divergent from the common phenotypes considered normal, e.g. extensive metabolizer). The high number of identified individuals with at least one pharmacogenetic variant or divergent phenotype indicates the importance of pharmacogenetic panel-based genotyping. Combined CYP2C19-CYP2D6 phenotypes revealed that 72.7% of individuals had divergent phenotypes for one or both enzymes. As CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 have an important role in the metabolism of psychotropic drugs, this indicates the relevance of pharmacogenetic testing specifically in individuals using psychotropic drugs.

Pharmacogenetics in psychiatric care, a call for uptake of available applications.

In this narrative, we evaluate the role of pharmacogenetics in psychiatry from a pragmatic clinical perspective and address current barriers of clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics. Pharmacogenetics has been successfully implemented to improve drug therapy in several clinical areas, but not psychiatry. Yet, psychotropics account for more than one-third of the drugs for which pharmacogenetic guidelines are available and drug therapy in mental disorders is suboptimal with insufficient effectiveness and frequent adverse events. The limited application of pharmacogenetics in psychiatry is influenced by several factors; e.g. the complexity of psychotropic drug metabolism, possibly impeding the clinical understanding of the benefits of pharmacogenetics. Also, recommendations for most psychotropics classify pharmacogenetic testing only as (potentially) beneficial, not as essential, possibly because life-threatening adverse events are often not involved in these drug-gene interactions. Implementing pharmacogenetics in psychiatry could improve the current practice of time-consuming switching of therapies causing undue delays associated with worse outcomes. We expect pharmacogenetics in psychiatry to expedite with panel-based genotyping, including clinically relevant variants, which will address the complex enzymatic metabolism of psychotropic drugs. Until then, we stress that available pharmacogenetic testing should be seen as an integrated companion, not a competitor, in current clinical psychiatric care.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of DPYD and fluoropyrimidines.

Despite advances in the field of pharmacogenetics (PGx), clinical acceptance has remained limited. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of three anti-cancer drugs (fluoropyrimidines: 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine and tegafur) to decrease the risk of severe, potentially fatal, toxicity (such as diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis or myelosuppression). Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, encoded by the DPYD gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity. The DPYD-gene activity score, determined by four DPYD variants, predicts DPD activity and can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose. The gene activity score ranges from 0 (no DPD activity) to 2 (normal DPD activity). In case it is not possible to calculate the gene activity score based on DPYD genotype, we recommend to determine the DPD activity and adjust the initial dose based on available data. For patients initiating 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine: subjects with a gene activity score of 0 are recommended to avoid systemic and cutaneous 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine; subjects with a gene activity score of 1 or 1.5 are recommended to initiate therapy with 50% the standard dose of 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. For subjects initiating tegafur: subjects with a gene activity score of 0, 1 or 1.5 are recommended to avoid tegafur. Subjects with a gene activity score of 2 (reference) should receive a standard dose. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, DPYD genotyping is considered "essential", therefore directing DPYD testing prior to initiating fluoropyrimidines.

Confirmation practice in pharmacogenetic testing; how good is good enough?

Pharmacogenetic testing is increasingly implemented in routine diagnostics. However, quality control measures, in particular confirmation practices e.g. the use of two independent genotyping techniques, are subject of debate and there are no clear guidelines. The aim of the current paper is to discuss the current practice in confirmation testing in the field of pharmacogenetics and draw attention to this situation. DPYD genotyping is used as a case example to highlight the importance of assigning the correct genotype. Current confirmation practices in laboratories are explored through a survey. Substantial heterogeneity was observed with 54% of the laboratories applying different forms of confirmation practice. Finally, we evaluated over 10 years of genotyping results from two large genotyping facilities, which both use a second, independent genotyping technique. Discrepancies between tests were identified in 9 patients (0.01%), possibly due to allele dropout. We feel that a second, independent technique is useful for genetic tests with a high clinical impact, such as DPYD testing. Guidelines can help to align confirmatory laboratory practices for pharmacogenetics, which may need to be specified per gene and test.

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

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine therapy including capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil can result in severe treatment-related toxicity in up to 30% of patients. Toxicity is often related to reduced activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the main metabolic fluoropyrimidine enzyme, primarily caused by genetic DPYD polymorphisms. In a large prospective study, it was concluded that upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation is able to improve safety of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy. In our current analysis, we evaluated whether this strategy is cost saving. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis from a health-care payer perspective was performed as part of the prospective clinical trial (NCT02324452) in which patients prior to start of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy were screened for the DPYD variants DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A and received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T, c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A, c.1679T>G). Data on treatment, toxicity, hospitalisation and other toxicity-related interventions were collected. The model compared prospective screening for these DPYD variants with no DPYD screening. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Expected total costs of the screening strategy were €2599 per patient compared with €2650 for non-screening, resulting in a net cost saving of €51 per patient. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the screening strategy was very likely to be cost saving or worst case cost-neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation, improving patient safety, is cost saving or cost-neutral but is not expected to yield additional costs. These results endorse implementing DPYD screening before start of fluoropyrimidine treatment as standard of care.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies for Fluoropyrimidine Treatment of Patients Carrying Multiple DPYD Variants.

DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine treatment is increasingly implemented in clinical care. Without phasing information (i.e., allelic location of variants), current genotype-based dosing guidelines cannot be applied to patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. The primary aim of this study is to examine diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for fluoropyrimidine treatment of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. A case series of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants is presented. Different genotyping techniques were used to determine phasing information. Phenotyping was performed by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity measurements. Publicly available databases were queried to explore the frequency and phasing of variants of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants. Four out of seven patients carrying multiple DPYD variants received a full dose of fluoropyrimidines and experienced severe toxicity. Phasing information could be retrieved for four patients. In three patients, variants were located on two different alleles, i.e., in trans. Recommended dose reductions based on the phased genotype differed from the phenotype-derived dose reductions in three out of four cases. Data from publicly available databases show that the frequency of patients carrying multiple DPYD variants is low (< 0.2%), but higher than the frequency of the commonly tested DPYD*13 variant (0.1%). Patients carrying multiple DPYD variants are at high risk of developing severe toxicity. Additional analyses are required to determine the correct dose of fluoropyrimidine treatment. In patients carrying multiple DPYD variants, we recommend that a DPD phenotyping assay be carried out to determine a safe starting dose.

Standard fluoropyrimidine dosages in chemoradiation therapy result in an increased risk of severe toxicity in DPYD variant allele carriers.

BACKGROUND: Prospective DPYD genotyping prevents severe fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicity by decreasing dosages in DPYD variant allele carriers. FP dosages in chemoradiation therapy (CRT) are lower than those in other FP-containing regimens. Pharmacogenetic guidelines do not distinguish between regimens, leaving physicians in doubt to apply dose reductions. Our aim was to investigate severe toxicity in DPYD variant allele carriers receiving CRT. METHODS: Medical records of 828 patients who received FP-based CRT were reviewed from three centres. Severe (grade ≥III) toxicity in DPYD variant allele carriers receiving upfront FP dose reductions according to pharmacogenetic dosing guidelines and DPYD variant allele carriers not receiving FP dose reductions was compared with DPYD wild-type patients receiving standard dose of FPs in CRT. RESULTS: DPYD variant allele carriers treated with standard dosages (N = 34) showed an increased risk of severe gastrointestinal (adjusted OR = 2.58, confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-6.53, P = 0.045) or severe haematological (adjusted OR = 4.19, CI = 1.32-13.25, P = 0.015) toxicity compared with wild-type patients (N = 771). DPYD variant allele carriers who received dose reductions (N = 22) showed a comparable frequency of severe gastrointestinal toxicity compared with wild-type patients, but more (not statistically significant) severe haematological toxicity. Hospitalisations for all DPYD variant allele carriers were comparable, independent of dose adjustments; however, the mean duration of hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the dose reduction group (P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Standard FP dosages in CRT resulted in an increased risk of severe toxicity in DPYD variant allele carriers. We advise to apply FP dose reductions according to current guidelines in DPYD variant allele carriers starting CRT.

Prospective DPYD genotyping to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine (CAP) are among the most frequently prescribed anticancer drugs. They are inactivated in the liver by the enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). Up to 5% of the population is DPD deficient and these patients have a significantly increased risk of severe and potentially lethal toxicity when treated with regular doses of 5-FU or CAP. DPD is encoded by the gene DPYD and variants in DPYD can lead to a decreased DPD activity. Although prospective DPYD genotyping is a valuable tool to identify patients with DPD deficiency, and thus those at risk for severe and potential life-threatening toxicity, prospective genotyping has not yet been implemented in daily clinical care. Our goal was to present the available evidence in favour of prospective genotyping, including discussion of unjustified worries on cost-effectiveness, and potential underdosing. We conclude that there is convincing evidence to implement prospective DPYD genotyping with an upfront dose adjustment in DPD deficient patients. Immediate benefit in patient care can be expected through decreasing toxicity, while maintaining efficacy.

Translating DPYD genotype into DPD phenotype: using the DPYD gene activity score.

The dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase enzyme (DPD, encoded by the gene DPYD) plays a key role in the metabolism of fluoropyrimidines. DPD deficiency occurs in 4-5% of the population and is associated with severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Several SNPs in DPYD have been described that lead to absent or reduced enzyme activity, including DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A/haplotype B3. Since these SNPs differ in their effect on DPD enzyme activity, a differentiated dose adaption is recommended. We propose the gene activity score for translating DPYD genotype into phenotype, accounting for differences in functionality of SNPs. This method can be used to standardize individualized fluoropyrimidine dose adjustments, resulting in optimal safety and effectiveness.