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


Journal

British journal of clinical pharmacology
ISSN: 1365-2125
Titre abrégé: Br J Clin Pharmacol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7503323

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2022
Historique:
revised: 21 07 2022
received: 06 07 2022
accepted: 29 07 2022
pubmed: 9 8 2022
medline: 14 10 2022
entrez: 8 8 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Measuring uracil (U) levels in plasma is a convenient surrogate to establish dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (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 haemodialysis 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, a 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 5th course, with still no sign for drug-related toxicities. Further DPYD genotyping showed none of the four 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35939355
doi: 10.1111/bcp.15482
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic 0
Uracil 56HH86ZVCT
Capecitabine 6804DJ8Z9U
Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP) EC 1.3.1.2
Fluorouracil U3P01618RT

Types de publication

Case Reports

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

4928-4932

Informations de copyright

© 2022 British Pharmacological Society.

Références

Diasio RB. The role of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) modulation in 5-FU pharmacology. Oncology (Williston Park). 1998;12:23-27.
Ciccolini J. DPD deficiency in patients treated with fluorouracil. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1574-1576.
Lunenburg CATC, Henricks LM, Guchelaar HJ, et al. Prospective DPYD genotyping to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced severe toxicity: ready for prime time. Eur J Cancer. 2016;54:40-48.
Hodroj K, Barthelemy D, Lega JC, et al. Issues and limitations of available biomarkers for fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy toxicity, a narrative review of the literature. ESMO Open. 2021;6:100125.
De With M, Knikman J, de Man FM, et al. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping using pretreatment uracil: a note of caution based on a large prospective clinical study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022;112:62-68.
Launay M, Guitton J, Balluet R, et al. Clinical considerations for DPD deficiency testing in advanced cancer patients: tumor lysis syndrome should be considered as a major interference. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:850-852.
Jacobs BAW, Snoeren N, Samim M, et al. The impact of liver resection on the dihydrouracil:uracil plasma ratio in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74:737-744.
Henricks LM, Jacobs BAW, Meulendijks D, et al. Food-effect study on uracil and dihydrouracil plasma levels as marker for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in human volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84:2761-2769.
Gaible C, Narjoz C, Loriot MA, Roueff S, Pallet N. Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine deshydrogenase deficiency in measuring uracilemia in dialysis patients leads to a high rate of falsely positive results. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2021;88:1049-1053.
Lee JJ, Beumer JH, Chu E. Therapeutic drug monitoring of 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2016;78:447-464.
Ito S, Kawamura T, Inada M, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of the three-step metabolism of pyrimidine using C-uracil as an in vivo probe. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60:584-593.
Marin C, Krache A, Palmaro C, et al. A simple and rapid UPLC-UV method for detecting DPD deficiency in patients with cancer. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:761-768.
Meulendijks D, Henricks LM, Jacobs BAW, et al. Pretreatment serum uracil concentration as a predictor of severe and fatal fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Br J Cancer. 2017;116:1415-1424.
Amstutz U, Henricks LM, Offer SM, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype and fluoropyrimidine dosing: 2017 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103:210-216.
Loriot MA, Ciccolini J, Thomas F, et al. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency screening and securing of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies: update and recommendations of the French GPCO-Unicancer and RNPGx networks. Bull Cancer. 2018;105:397-407.
Ciccolini J, Milano G, Guchelaar HJ. Detecting DPD deficiency: when perfect is the enemy of good. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2021;87:717-719.
Greenblatt DJ. Hepatic clearance of drugs in patients with renal insufficiency. Clin Pharmacol Drug. 2013;2:295-297.
Simonetto DA, Gines P, Kamath PS. Hepatorenal syndrome: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. BMJ. 2020;370:m2687.
Touchette MA, Slaughter RL. The effect of renal failure on hepatic drug clearance. DICP. 1991;25:1214-1224.
Launay M, Dahan L, Duval M, et al. Beating the odds: efficacy and toxicity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-driven adaptive dosing of 5-FU in patients with digestive cancer. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;81:124-130.

Auteurs

Laure Carriat (L)

Laboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, CHU Timone, APHM, Marseille, France.
SMARTc unit, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Marseille, France.

Sylvie Quaranta (S)

Laboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, CHU Timone, APHM, Marseille, France.

Caroline Solas (C)

Laboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, CHU Timone, APHM, Marseille, France.

Maelle Rony (M)

Oncologie Digestive, CHU Timone, APHM, Marseille, France.

Joseph Ciccolini (J)

Laboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, CHU Timone, APHM, Marseille, France.
SMARTc unit, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Marseille, France.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH