Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evolution of Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Diagnostic Testing in a Single Center during an 8-Year Period of Time.
Coenen, Marieke J H; Paulussen, Aimée D C; Breuer, Marc; Lindhout, Martijn; Tserpelis, Demis C J; Steyls, Anja; Bierau, Jörgen; van den Bosch, Bianca J C.
Affiliation
  • Coenen MJH; Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
  • Paulussen ADC; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Breuer M; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Lindhout M; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Tserpelis DCJ; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Steyls A; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Bierau J; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • van den Bosch BJC; Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp ; 90: 1-7, 2019.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30510603
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Fluoropyrimidine treatment can be optimized based on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity. DPD dysfunction leads to increased exposure to active metabolites, which can result in severe or even fatal toxicity.

METHODS:

We provide an overview of 8 years of DPD diagnostic testing (n = 1194).

RESULTS:

Within the study period, our diagnostic test evolved from a single-enzyme measurement using first a radiochemical and then a nonradiochemical assay by ultra HPLC-MS in peripheral blood mononuclear cells with uracil, to a combined enzymatic and genetic test (ie, polymerase chain reaction) followed by Sanger sequence analysis of 4 variants of the DPYD gene (ie, DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, c.2846A>T, and 1129-5923C>G; allele frequencies 0.58%, 0.03%, 0.29%, and 1.35%, respectively). Patients who have 1 of the 4 variants tested (n = 814) have lower enzyme activity than the overall patient group. The majority of patients with the DPYD*2A variant (83%) consistently showed decreased enzyme activity. Only 24 (25.3%) of 95 patients (tested for 4 variants) with low enzyme activity carried a variant. Complete DPYD sequencing in a subgroup with low enzyme activity and without DPYD*2A variant (n = 47) revealed 10 genetic variants, of which 4 have not been described previously. We did not observe a strong link between DPYD genotype and enzyme activity.

CONCLUSIONS:

Previous studies have shown that DPD status should be determined before treatment with fluoropyrimidine agents to prevent unnecessary side effects with possible fatal consequences. Our study in combination with literature shows that there is a discrepancy between the DPD enzyme activity and the presence of clinically relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms. At this moment, a combination of a genetic and enzyme test is preferable for diagnostic testing. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2018; 79XXX-XXX).
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies Language: En Journal: Curr Ther Res Clin Exp Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies Language: En Journal: Curr Ther Res Clin Exp Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Netherlands