A Simple and Rapid UPLC-UV Method for Detecting DPD Deficiency in Patients With Cancer

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.

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.

Quantitative impact of pre-analytical process on plasma uracil when testing for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency

AIMS

Determining dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity by measuring patient's uracil (U) plasma concentration is mandatory before fluoropyrimidine (FP) administration in France. In this study, we aimed to refine the pre-analytical recommendations for determining U and dihydrouracil (UH₂ ) concentrations, as they are essential in reliable DPD-deficiency testing.

METHODS

U and UH₂ concentrations were collected from 14 hospital laboratories. Stability in whole blood and plasma after centrifugation, the type of anticoagulant and long-term plasma storage were evaluated. The variation induced by time and temperature was calculated and compared to an acceptability range of ±20%. Inter-occasion variability (IOV) of U and UH₂ was assessed in 573 patients double sampled for DPD-deficiency testing.

RESULTS

Storage of blood samples before centrifugation at room temperature (RT) should not exceed 1 h, whereas cold (+4°C) storage maintains the stability of uracil after 5 hours. For patients correctly double sampled, IOV of U reached 22.4% for U (SD = 17.9%, range = 0-99%). Notably, 17% of them were assigned with a different phenotype (normal or DPD-deficient) based on the analysis of their two samples. For those having at least one non-compliant sample, this percentage increased up to 33.8%. The moment of blood collection did not affect the DPD phenotyping result.

CONCLUSION

Caution should be taken when interpreting U concentrations if the time before centrifugation exceeds 1 hour at RT, since it rises significantly afterwards. Not respecting the pre-analytical conditions for DPD phenotyping increases the risk of DPD status misclassification.

Machine-Learning Exploration of Exposure-Effect Relationships of Cisplatin in Head and Neck Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin is a pivotal drug in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and personalized dosage should help the preservation of an optimal toxicity-efficacy ratio.

METHODS

We analyzed the exposure-effect relationships of 80 adult patients with head and neck cancers and treated with standard Cisplatin-based regimen administered as three-hour infusion. Individual pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters of Cisplatin were identified using a Bayesian approach. Nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity were considered as typical Cisplatin-related toxicities according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) standards. Efficacy was evaluated based upon Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Up to nine different machine-learning algorithms were tested to decipher the exposure-effect relationships with Cisplatin.

RESULTS

The generalized linear model was the best algorithm with an accuracy of 0.71, a recall of 0.55 and a precision of 0.75. Among the various metrics for exposure (i.e., maximal concentration (Cmax), area-under-the-curve (AUC), trough levels), Cmax, comprising a range between 2.4 and 4.1 µg/mL, was the best one to be considered. When comparing a consequent, model-informed dosage with the standard dosage in 20 new patients, our strategy would have led to a reduced dosage in patients who would eventually prove to have severe toxicities while increasing dosage in patients with progressive disease.

CONCLUSION

Determining a target Cmax could pave the way for PK-guided precision dosage with Cisplatin given as three-hour infusion.

Renal impairment and DPD testing: watch out for false-positive results!

Measuring uracil (U) levels in plasma is a convenient surrogate to establish DPD status in patients scheduled with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine. To what extent renal impairment could impact on U levels and thus be a confounding factor is a rising concern. Here, we report the case of a cancer patient with severe renal impairment scheduled for 5-FU-based regimen. Determination of his DPD status was complicated because of his condition and the influence of intermittent hemodialysis when monitoring U levels. The patient was initially identified as markedly DPD-deficient upon U measurement (i.e., U = 40 ng/ml), but further monitoring between and immediately after dialysis showed mild deficiency only (i.e., U = 34 and U = 19 ng/ml, respectively). Despite this discrepancy, starting dose of 5-FU was cut by 50% upon treatment initiation. Tolerance was good and 5-FU dosing was next shifted to 25% reduction, then further shifted to normal dosing at the 5^th course, with still no sign for drug-related toxicities. Further DPYD genotyping showed none of the 4 allelic variants usually associated with loss of DPD activity. Of note, the excellent tolerance upon standard dosing strongly suggests that this patient was actually not DPD-deficient, despite U values always above normal concentrations. This case report highlights how critical is the information regarding the renal function of patients with cancer when phenotyping DPD using U plasma as a surrogate, and that U accumulation in patients with such condition is likely to yield false-positive results.

Fast, Direct Dihydrouracil Quantitation in Human Saliva: Method Development, Validation, and Application

Background. Salivary metabolomics is garnering increasing attention in the health field because of easy, minimally invasive saliva sampling. Dihydrouracil (DHU) is a metabolite of pyrimidine metabolism present in urine, plasma, and saliva and of fluoropyrimidines-based chemotherapeutics. Its fast quantification would help in the identification of patients with higher risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity and inborn errors of pyrimidine metabolism. Few studies consider DHU as the main salivary metabolite, but reports of its concentration levels in saliva are scarce. We propose the direct determination of DHU in saliva by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC-UV detector) as a simple, rapid procedure for non-invasive screening. Methods. The method used was validated and applied to 176 saliva samples collected from 21 nominally healthy volunteers and 4 saliva samples from metastatic colorectal cancer patients before and after receiving 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Results. DHU levels in all samples analyzed were in the μmol L⁻¹ range or below proving that DHU is not the main metabolite in saliva and confirming the results found in the literature with LC-MS/MS instrumentation. Any increase of DHU due to metabolism dysfunctions can be suggestive of disease and easily monitored in saliva using common, low-cost instrumentation available also for population screening.

A Facile Method for the Quantification of Urinary Uracil Concentration by a Uracil-Specific Fluorescence Derivatization Reaction

A facile and reliable fluorescence method for the quantification of urinary uracil concentration is proposed herein. The assay utilizes a specific fluorescence (FL) derivatization reaction for uracil using 3-methylbenzamidoxime as a fluorogenic reagent. Although the presence of urine inhibited the FL reaction, 10 µL of urine was sufficient for the detection of urinary uracil. The uracil derivative was successfully separated from other fluorescent impurities using simple reversed-phase LC with FL detection. Urinary uracil concentrations from 16 people were compared with the concentrations obtained by the traditional column-switching liquid chromatographic analysis with UV detection. The FL derivative of uracil appeared as a single peak in the chromatograms of all samples. However, several samples showed an additional peak overlapping the uracil peak when using the column-switching method because of UV-active impurities. These results indicated that that the present method is not affected by interfering substances in urine and affords a precise determination of urinary uracil. We expect the proposed method to be applicable for diagnosing dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency in 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Overcoming barriers to implementing precision dosing with 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine

Despite advances in targeted cancer therapy, the fluoropyrimidines 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and capecitabine continue to play an important role in oncology. Historically, dosing of these drugs has been based on body surface area. This approach has been demonstrated to be an imprecise way to determine the optimal dose for a patient. Evidence in the literature has demonstrated that precision dosing approaches, such as DPD enzyme activity testing and, in the case of intravenous 5FU, pharmacokinetic-guided dosing, can reduce toxicity and yield better patient outcomes. However, despite the evidence, there has not been uniform adoption of these approaches in the clinical setting. When a drug such as 5FU has been used clinically for many decades, it may be difficult to change clinical practice. With the aim of facilitating change of practice, issues and barriers to implementing precision dosing approaches for 5FU and capecitabine are identified and discussed with possible solutions proposed.

Association of 5-FU Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to DPD Phenotype Assessment May Reduce 5-FU Under-Exposure

In order to limit 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) toxicity, some health agencies recommend evaluating dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency before any 5-FU treatment introduction. In our study, we investigated relationships between 5-FU clearance and markers of DPD activity such as uracilemia (U), dihydrouracilemia (UH₂)/U ratio, or genotype of the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). All patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received 5-FU-based regimens form March 2018 to June 2020 were included in our study. They routinely benefited of a pre-therapeutic DPYD genotyping and phenotyping. During 5-FU infusion, blood samples were collected to measure 5-FU steady-state concentration in order to adapt 5-FU doses at the following cycles. A total of 169 patients were included. Median age was 68 (40–88) years and main primary tumor sites were colorectal (40.8%) and pancreas (31.4%), metastatic in 76.3%. 5-FU was given as part of FOLFIRINOX (44.4%), simplified FOLFOX-6 (26.6%), or docetaxel/FOLFOX-4 (10.6%). Regarding DPD activity, median U and UH₂/U were, respectively, 10.8 ng/mL and 10.1, and almost 15% harbored a heterozygous mutation. On the range of measured U and UH₂/U, no correlation was observed with 5-FU clearance. Moreover, in patients with U < 16 ng/mL, 5-FU exposure was higher than in other patients, and most of them benefited of dose increase following 5-FU therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). If recent guidelines recommend decreasing 5-FU dose in patients harboring U ≥ 16 ng/mL, our study highlights that those patients are at risk of under-exposure and that 5-FU TDM should be conducted in order to avoid loss of efficacy.