Lethal Capecitabine Toxicity in Patients With Complete Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency Due to Ultra-Rare DPYD Variants.

A DPD deficiency should be considered in case of severe toxicity even in the absence of common risk variants in DPYD.

Unveiling Discrepant and Rare Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) Results Using an In-House Genotyping Test: A Case Series.

Fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is a primary component of many solid tumor treatment regimens, particularly those for gastrointestinal malignancies. Approximately one-third of patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies experience serious adverse effects. This risk is substantially higher in patients carrying DPYD genetic variants, which cause reduced fluoropyrimidine metabolism and inactivation (ie, dihydropyridine dehydrogenase [DPD] deficiency). Despite the known relationship between DPD deficiency and severe toxicity risk, including drug-related fatalities, pretreatment DPYD testing is not standard of care in the United States. We developed an in-house DPYD genotyping test that detects 5 clinically actionable variants associated with DPD deficiency, and genotyped 827 patients receiving fluoropyrimidines, of which 49 (6%) were identified as heterozygous carriers. We highlight 3 unique cases: (1) a patient with a false-negative result from a commercial laboratory that only tested for the c.1905 + 1G>A (*2A) variant, (2) a White patient in whom the c.557A>G variant (typically observed in people of African ancestry) was detected, and (3) a patient with the rare c.1679T>G (*13) variant. Lastly, we evaluated which DPYD variants are detected by commercial laboratories offering DPYD genotyping in the United States and found 6 of 13 (46%) did not test for all 5 variants included on our panel. We estimated that 20.4% to 81.6% of DPYD heterozygous carriers identified on our panel would have had a false-negative result if tested by 1 of these 6 laboratories. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of the diagnostic tests from these laboratories ranged from 18.4% to 79.6% and 95.1% to 98.7%, respectively. These cases underscore the importance of comprehensive DPYD genotyping to accurately identify patients with DPD deficiency who may require lower fluoropyrimidine doses to mitigate severe toxicities and hospitalizations. Clinicians should be aware of test limitations and variability in variant detection by commercial laboratories, and seek assistance by pharmacogenetic experts or available resources for test selection and result interpretation.

A novel large intragenic DPYD deletion causing dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), is the initial and rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolic pathway of pyrimidines. Deleterious variants in the DPYD gene cause DPD deficiency, a rare autosomal recessive disorder. The clinical spectrum of affected individuals is wide ranging from asymptomatic to severely affected patients presenting with intellectual disability, motor retardation, developmental delay and seizures. DPD is also important as the main enzyme in the catabolism of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) which is extensively used as a chemotherapeutic agent. Even in the absence of clinical symptoms, individuals with either complete or partial DPD deficiency face a high risk of severe and even fatal fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. The identification of causative genetic variants in DPYD is therefore gaining increasing attention due to their potential use as predictive markers of fluoropyrimidine toxicity. METHODS: A male infant patient displaying biochemical features of DPD deficiency was investigated by clinical exome sequencing. Bioinformatics tools were used for data analysis and results were confirmed by MLPA and Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: A novel intragenic deletion of 71.2 kb in the DPYD gene was identified in homozygosity. The deletion, DPYD(NM_000110.4):c.850 + 23455_1128 + 8811del, eliminates exons 9 and 10 and may have resulted from a non-homologous end-joining event, as suggested by in silico analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The study expands the spectrum of DPYD variants associated with DPD deficiency. Furthermore, it raises the concern that patients at risk for fluoropyrimidine toxicity due to DPYD deletions could be missed during pre-treatment genetic testing for the currently recommended single nucleotide polymorphisms.

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.

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.

Risk of Toxicity From Topical 5-Fluorouracil Treatment in Patients Carrying DPYD Variant Alleles.

Patients carrying DPYD variant alleles have increased risk of severe toxicity from systemic fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. There is a paucity of data regarding risk of toxicity from topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) treatment in these patients, leading to inconsistent guideline recommendations for pretreatment testing and topical 5-FU dosing. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether DPYD variant allele carriers have increased risk of toxicity from topical 5-FU. Treatment and toxicity data were retrospectively abstracted from the electronic medical records. Genotypes for the five DPYD variants that are associated with increased toxicity from systemic fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, DPYD p.D949V, DPYD HapB3, and DPYD p.Y186C) were collected from a genetic data repository. Incidence of grade 3+ (primary end point) and 1+ (secondary end point) toxicity was compared between DPYD variant carriers vs. wild-type patients using Fisher's exact tests. The analysis included 201 patients, 7% (14/201) of whom carried a single DPYD variant allele. No patients carried two variant alleles or experienced grade 3+ toxicity. DPYD variant allele carriers did not have a significantly higher risk of grade 1+ toxicity (21.4% vs. 10.2%, odds ratio = 2.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-2.53, P = 0.19). Given the low toxicity risk in patients carrying a single DPYD variant allele, there is limited potential clinical benefit of DPYD genetic testing prior to topical 5-FU. However, the risk of severe toxicity in patients with complete DPD deficiency remains unknown and topical 5-FU treatment should be avoided in these patients.

Patient and healthcare professional acceptability of pharmacogenetic screening for DPYD and UGT1A1: A cross sectional survey.

This study explored the acceptability of a novel pharmacist-led pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening program among patients with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) taking part in a multicenter clinical trial of PGx testing (PACIFIC-PGx ANZCTR:12621000251820). Medical oncologists, oncology pharmacists, and patients with cancer from across four sites (metropolitan/regional), took part in an observational, cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited from the multicenter trial. Two study-specific surveys were developed to inform implementation strategies for scaled and sustainable translation into routine clinical care: one consisting of 21 questions targeting HCPs and one consisting of 17 questions targeting patients. Responses were collected from 24 HCPs and 288 patients. The 5-to-7-day PGx results turnaround time was acceptable to HCP (100%) and patients (69%). Most HCPs (92%) indicated that it was appropriate for the PGx clinical pharmacist to provide results to patients. Patients reported equal preference for receiving PGx results from a doctor/pharmacist. Patients and HCPs highly rated the pharmacist-led PGx service. HCPs were overall accepting of the program, with the majority (96%) willing to offer PGx testing to their patients beyond the trial. HCPs identified that lack of financial reimbursements (62%) and lack of infrastructure (38%) were the main reasons likely to prevent/slow the implementation of PGx screening program into routine clinical care. Survey data have shown overall acceptability from patients and HCPs participating in the PGx Program. Barriers to implementation of PGx testing in routine care have been identified, providing opportunity to develop targeted implementation strategies for scaled translation into routine practice.

Impact of renal impairment on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotyping.

BACKGROUND: The chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is catabolized by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the deficiency of which may lead to severe toxicity or death. Since 2019, DPD deficiency testing, based on uracilemia, is mandatory in France and recommended in Europe before initiating fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. However, it has been recently shown that renal impairment may impact uracil concentration and thus DPD phenotyping. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The impact of renal function on uracilemia and DPD phenotype was studied on 3039 samples obtained from three French centers. We also explored the influence of dialysis and measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) on both parameters. Finally, using patients as their own controls, we assessed as to what extent modifications in renal function impacted uracilemia and DPD phenotyping. RESULTS: We observed that uracilemia and DPD-deficient phenotypes increased concomitantly to the severity of renal impairment based on the estimated GFR, independently and more critically than hepatic function. This observation was confirmed with the mGFR. The risk of being classified 'DPD deficient' based on uracilemia was statistically higher in patients with renal impairment or dialyzed if uracilemia was measured before dialysis but not after. Indeed, the rate of DPD deficiency decreased from 86.4% before dialysis to 13.7% after. Moreover, for patients with transient renal impairment, the rate of DPD deficiency dropped dramatically from 83.3% to 16.7% when patients restored their renal function, especially in patients with an uracilemia close to 16 ng/ml. CONCLUSIONS: DPD deficiency testing using uracilemia could be misleading in patients with renal impairment. When possible, uracilemia should be reassessed in case of transient renal impairment. For patients under dialysis, testing of DPD deficiency should be carried out on samples taken after dialysis. Hence, 5-FU therapeutic drug monitoring would be particularly helpful to guide dose adjustments in patients with elevated uracil and renal impairment.

Screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency by measuring uracilemia in chronic kidney disease patients is associated with a high rate of false positives.

BACKGROUND: Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency based on the measurement of plasma uracil ([U]) is recommended prior to the administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Cancer patients frequently have impaired kidney function, but the extent to which kidney function decline impacts [U] levels has not been comprehensively investigated. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between DPD phenotypes and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in 1751 patients who benefited on the same day from a screening for DPD deficiency by measuring [U] and [UH2]:[U], and an evaluation of eGFR. The impact of a kidney function decline on [U] levels and [UH2]:[U] ratio was evaluated. RESULTS: We observed that [U] was negatively correlated with eGFR, indicating that [U] levels increase as eGFR declines. For each ml/min of eGFR decrease, [U] value increased in average by 0.035 ng/ml. Using the KDIGO classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD), we observed that [U] values >16 ng/ml (DPD deficiency) were measured in 3.6 % and 4.4 % of stage 1 and 2 CKD (normal-high eGFR, >60 ml/min/1.73 m2) patients, but in 6.7 % of stage 3A CKD patients (45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2), 25% of stage 3B CKD patients (30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2), 22.7% of stage 4 CKD patients (15 to 29 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 26.7% of stage 5 CKD patients (<15 ml/min/1.73 m2). [UH2]:[U] ratios were not impacted by kidney function. CONCLUSION: DPD phenotyping based on the measurement of plasma [U] in patients with decreased eGFR is associated with an exceedingly high rate of false positives when kidney function decline reaches 45 ml/minute/1.73 m2 of eGFR or lower. In this population, an alternative strategy that remain to be evaluated would be to measure the [UH2]:[U] ratio in addition to [U].

Implementation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency testing in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The main cause for fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity is deficiency of the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended two methods for pre-treatment DPD deficiency testing in clinical practice: phenotyping using endogenous uracil concentration or genotyping for DPYD risk variant alleles. This study assessed the DPD testing implementation status in Europe before (2019) and after (2021) the release of the EMA recommendations. METHODS: The survey was conducted from 16 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. An electronic form with seven closed and three open questions was e-mailed to 251 professionals with DPD testing expertise of 34 European countries. A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: We received 79 responses (31%) from 23 countries. Following publication of the EMA recommendations, 87% and 75% of the countries reported an increase in the amount of genotype and phenotype testing, respectively. Implementation of novel local guidelines was reported by 21 responders (27%). Countries reporting reimbursement of both tests increased in 2021, and only four (18%) countries reported no coverage for any testing type. In 2019, major implementation drivers were 'retrospective assessment of fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity' (39%), and in 2021, testing was driven by 'publication of guidelines' (40%). Although the major hurdles remained the same after EMA recommendations-'lack of reimbursement' (26%; 2019 versus 15%; 2021) and 'lack of recognizing the clinical relevance by medical oncologists' (25%; 2019 versus 8%; 2021)-the percentage of specialists citing these decreased. Following EMA recommendations, 25% of responders reported no hurdles at all in the adoption of the new testing practice in the clinics. CONCLUSIONS: The EMA recommendations have supported the implementation of DPD deficiency testing in Europe. Key factors for successful implementation were test reimbursement and clear clinical guidelines. Further efforts to improve the oncologists' awareness of the clinical relevance of DPD testing in clinical practice are needed.

Discrepancies between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping and genotyping: What are the explanatory factors?

AIM: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency can be detected by phenotyping (measurement of plasma uracil [U], with U ≥ 16 µg/L defining a partial deficiency) and/or by genotyping (screening for the four most frequent DPYD variants). We aimed to determine the proportion of discrepancies between phenotypic and genotypic approaches and to identify possible explanatory factors. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent both phenotyping and genotyping were retrospectively collected. Complementary genetic analyses (genotyping of the variant c.557A>G and DPYD sequencing) were performed for patients with U ≥ 16 µg/L without any common variants. The characteristics of patients classified according to the congruence of the phenotyping and genotyping approaches were compared (Kruskal-Wallis test), and determinants of U levels were studied in the whole cohort (linear model). RESULTS: Among the 712 included patients, phenotyping and genotyping were discordant for 12.5%, with 63 (8.8%) having U ≥ 16 µg/L in the absence of a common variant. Complementary genetic investigations marginally reduced the percentage of discrepancies to 12.1%: Among the nine additional identified variants, only the c.557A>G variant, carried by three patients, had been previously reported to be associated with DPD deficiency. Liver dysfunction could explain certain discordances, as ASAT, ALP, GGT and bilirubin levels were significantly elevated, with more frequent liver metastases in patients with U ≥ 16 µg/L and the absence of a DPYD variant. The impact of cytolysis was confirmed, as ASAT levels were independently associated with increased U (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The frequent discordances between DPD phenotyping and genotyping approaches highlight the need to perform these two approaches to screen for all DPD deficiencies.

Posible influencia de factores no controlados en las concentraciones séricas de uracilo / Possible influence of uncontrolled factors on serum uracil concentrations

Antecedentes y objetivos: el déficit de dihidropirimidina deshidrogenasa (DPD) se ha asociado con un mayor riesgo de toxicidad tras exposición a fluoropirimidinas (FP). La determinación de las concentraciones plasmáticas de uracilo endógeno (U) es la prueba recomendada para identificar el déficit de DPD. Sin embargo, el valor de U puede verse afectado por diversos factores. El objetivo fue determinar la concentración sérica de U en una población candidata a recibir tratamiento con FP y comprobar si su distribución era compatible con la prevalencia del déficit parcial de DPD estimada en población caucásica. Material y métodos: estudio observacional prospectivo en el que se incluyeron pacientes oncológicos candidatos a tratamiento con FP. Para la determinación analítica se empleó un sistema Dionex Ultimate 3000 UHPLC, acoplado a un espectrómetro de masas cuadrupolo-orbitrap híbrido Q-exactive. Resultados: se incluyeron 77 pacientes con una edad media de 71 años. La media y la mediana de las concentraciones séricas de U fue 30,4 y 24,0 ng/ml, respectivamente. El rango fue de 7,1 a 139,7 ng/ml. Un 79,2% de los pacientes presentó un nivel de U comprendido entre 16 y 150 ng/ml, mostrando una diferencia estadísticamente significativa al compararlo con la prevalencia estimada en población caucásica (8%) (p-valor <0,0001). El método analítico empleado tiene un coeficiente de correlación R2 > 0,99 y un límite de detección <0,2 ng/ml. Conclusiones: es necesario llevar a cabo más estudios con un diseño dirigido a establecer las condiciones óptimas relativas al pretratamiento de las muestras a fin de evitar o minimizar la influencia de estos factores sobre los valores del analito. (AU)

Background and objective: dihydropyridine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of toxicity after exposure to fluoropyrimidines (FP). Determination of endogenous uracil (U) plasma concentrations is the recommended test to identify DPD deficiency. However, the value of U can be affected by various factors. The objective was to determine the serum concentration of U in a population candidate to receive treatment with FP and to verify if its distribution was compatible with the prevalence of partial DPD deficiency estimated in the Caucasian population. Material and methods: prospective observational study in which cancer patients candidates for FP treatment were included. For the analytical determination, a Dionex Ultimate 3000 UHPLC system coupled to a Q-exactive hybrid quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer was used. Results: 77 patients, with a mean age of 71 years, were included. The mean and median serum U concentrations were 30.4 and 24.0 ng/ml, respectively. The range was from 7.1 to 139.7 ng/ml. 79.2% of the patients presented a U level between 16 and 150ng/ml, showing a statistically significant difference when compared to the estimated prevalence in the Caucasian population (8%) (p-value <0.0001). The analytical method used has a correlation coefficient R2 > 0.99 and a detection limit <0.2 ng/ml. Conclusions: it is necessary to carry out more studies with a design aimed at establishing the optimal conditions related to the pretreatment of the samples in order to avoid or minimize the influence of these factors on the analyte values. (AU)

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.

Awareness and attitudes of oncology specialists toward dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase testing in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidines (FP) are among the most common class of prescribed anti-neoplastic drugs. This class has severe to moderate toxicity in around 10%-40% of those who take 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine for the treatment of cancer. In practice many patients with severe toxicities from FP use had dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme deficiency. Several studies have proposed DPD screening before treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine or other drugs belonging to the FP group. This study aims to assess the level of awareness and attitudes of oncology specialists in Saudi Arabia toward genetic screening for DPD prior to giving FP. This highlights the importance of health guidelines required for implementation in our health care system, as a framework to adopt testing as a regular practice in clinical care. Based on the findings in this study, guidelines have been suggested for the Middle East North Africa region. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted during 2021 targeting oncologists and clinical pharmacists working in the oncology departments across Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: A total of 130 oncologists and pharmacists completed the questionnaire representing a response rate of 87%. Most of the respondents indicated that they prescribe FP in clinical practice, but 41% of respondents reported that they have never ordered a specific molecular test during their practice. Only 20% of respondents reported that they often screen for DPD deficiency prior to prescribing FP. Significantly higher rates of awareness of potential dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) mutation were observed among respondents in governmental hospitals (81.1% vs. 47.4% in private hospitals), and among those with more years of practice (80.6% if 5 or more years of practice vs. 59.3% if less than 5 years of practice). Also, higher rates of observing the impact of DPD testing were present among respondents with a PharmD (35% vs. 11% for oncologists and 18% for other professions) and among those with 5 or more years of practice (24.6% vs. 7.7% among those with less than 5 years). CONCLUSION: While in some institutions there is a high level of awareness among oncology specialists in Saudi Arabia regarding the effect of the potentially serious DPD enzyme deficiency as a result of gene mutations, screening for these mutations prior to prescribing FP is not a routine practice in hospitals across the country. The findings of this study should promote personalized medicine with recognition of interpatient variability via DPD testing to manage the risks of FP prescribing more effectively in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

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.