Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: Perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists.

DPYD Fluoropyrimidine UGT1A1 irinotecan pharmacogenetics

Journal

Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners
ISSN: 1477-092X
Titre abrégé: J Oncol Pharm Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9511372

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Apr 2023
Historique:
entrez: 6 4 2023
pubmed: 7 4 2023
medline: 7 4 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation. A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation. PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation.
METHODS METHODS
A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS RESULTS
Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37021580
doi: 10.1177/10781552231167554
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10781552231167554

Auteurs

Sarah Glewis (S)

Department of Pharmacy, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Senthil Lingaratnam (S)

Department of Pharmacy, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Mei Krishnasamy (M)

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Academic Nursing Unit, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
VCCC Alliance, Parkville, Australia.

Jennifer H Martin (J)

School of Medicine and Public Health, 5994University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

Jeanne Tie (J)

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Medical Oncology, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Personalised Oncology Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Marliese Alexander (M)

Department of Pharmacy, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Michael Michael (M)

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Medical Oncology, 3085Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Classifications MeSH