Management of patients with reduced dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity receiving combined 5-fluoruracil-/capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy.
Genetic variants
Multimodal treatment
Personalized medicine
Pre-therapeutic testing
Rectal cancer
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Sep 2024
04 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
06
06
2024
accepted:
24
07
2024
medline:
4
9
2024
pubmed:
4
9
2024
entrez:
4
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
5‑Fluoruracil (5-FU) and its oral prodrug capecitabine are mainstays in combined chemoradiotherapy regimens. They are metabolized by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD). Pathogenic variants of the DPYD gene cause a reduction in DPYD activity, leading to possibly severe toxicities. Therefore, patients receiving 5‑FU-/capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy should be tested for DPYD variants. However, there are limited clinical data on treatment adjustments and tolerability in patients with decreased DPYP activity receiving combined chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of the toxicity profiles of patients with decreased DPYD activity treated at our center was conducted. For all patients receiving 5‑FU-/capecitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy at our department, DPYD activity was routinely tested. Genotyping of four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, c.2846A > T, and haplotype B3) was conducted according to the recommendation of the German Society for Hematooncology (DGHO) using TaqMan hydrolysis polymerase chain reaction (PCR; QuantStudy 3, Thermo FisherScientific, Darmstadt). DPYD variants and activity score as well as clinical data (tumor entity, treatment protocol, dose adjustments, and toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]) were assessed and reported. Of 261 tested patients, 21 exhibited DPYD variants, 18 of whom received chemoradiotherapy. All but one patient was treated for rectal or anal carcinoma. The observed rate of DPYD variants was 8.0%, and heterozygous haplotype B3 was the most common (5.75%). One patient exhibited a homozygous DPYD variant. DPYD activity score was at least 0.5 in heterozygous patients; chemotherapy dose was adjusted accordingly, with an applied dose of 50-75%. CTCAE grade 2 skin toxicity (50%) and grade 3 leukopenia (33.3%) were most common. One patient experienced a transient grade 4 increase in transaminases. All high-grade toxicities were manageable with supportive treatment and transient. No CTCAE grade 5 toxicities related to 5‑FU administration were observed. With dose reduction in heterozygous patients, toxicity was within the range of patients without DPYD variants. Our clinical data suggest that dose-adapted 5‑FU-/capecitabine-chemoradiotherapy regimens can be safely considered in patients with heterozygous clinically relevant DPYD variants, but that the optimal dosage still needs to be determined to avoid both increased toxicity and undertreatment in a curative setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
5‑Fluoruracil (5-FU) and its oral prodrug capecitabine are mainstays in combined chemoradiotherapy regimens. They are metabolized by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD). Pathogenic variants of the DPYD gene cause a reduction in DPYD activity, leading to possibly severe toxicities. Therefore, patients receiving 5‑FU-/capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy should be tested for DPYD variants. However, there are limited clinical data on treatment adjustments and tolerability in patients with decreased DPYP activity receiving combined chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of the toxicity profiles of patients with decreased DPYD activity treated at our center was conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
For all patients receiving 5‑FU-/capecitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy at our department, DPYD activity was routinely tested. Genotyping of four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, c.2846A > T, and haplotype B3) was conducted according to the recommendation of the German Society for Hematooncology (DGHO) using TaqMan hydrolysis polymerase chain reaction (PCR; QuantStudy 3, Thermo FisherScientific, Darmstadt). DPYD variants and activity score as well as clinical data (tumor entity, treatment protocol, dose adjustments, and toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]) were assessed and reported.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 261 tested patients, 21 exhibited DPYD variants, 18 of whom received chemoradiotherapy. All but one patient was treated for rectal or anal carcinoma. The observed rate of DPYD variants was 8.0%, and heterozygous haplotype B3 was the most common (5.75%). One patient exhibited a homozygous DPYD variant. DPYD activity score was at least 0.5 in heterozygous patients; chemotherapy dose was adjusted accordingly, with an applied dose of 50-75%. CTCAE grade 2 skin toxicity (50%) and grade 3 leukopenia (33.3%) were most common. One patient experienced a transient grade 4 increase in transaminases. All high-grade toxicities were manageable with supportive treatment and transient. No CTCAE grade 5 toxicities related to 5‑FU administration were observed.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
With dose reduction in heterozygous patients, toxicity was within the range of patients without DPYD variants. Our clinical data suggest that dose-adapted 5‑FU-/capecitabine-chemoradiotherapy regimens can be safely considered in patients with heterozygous clinically relevant DPYD variants, but that the optimal dosage still needs to be determined to avoid both increased toxicity and undertreatment in a curative setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39230592
doi: 10.1007/s00066-024-02287-7
pii: 10.1007/s00066-024-02287-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung
ID : EH received funding as a clinician scientist "Forschungskolleg Therapieresistenz solider Tumoren"
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Patel PA (2011) Evolution of 5‑fluorouracil-based chemoradiation in the management of rectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs 22(4):311–316
doi: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e3283441a63
pubmed: 21301320
O’Cathail SM et al (2023) Patient-reported outcomes in PROSPECT trial (Alliance N1048)—FOLFOX is not a panacea. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 43:100672
pubmed: 37720254
pmcid: 10500448
Bulens PP et al (2022) Nonoperative versus operative approach according to the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: A prospective cohort study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 36:113–120
pubmed: 35993092
pmcid: 9382364
Tchelebi LT et al (2022) Current treatment and future directions in the management of anal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 72(2):183–195
doi: 10.3322/caac.21712
pubmed: 34847242
de Haar-Holleman A et al (2023) Chemoradiation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer using 5‑fluorouracil versus capecitabine: A nationwide cohort study. Radiother Oncol 183:109584
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109584
pubmed: 36863459
Buckley AM et al (2020) Targeting hallmarks of cancer to enhance radiosensitivity in gastrointestinal cancers. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17(5):298–313
doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0247-2
pubmed: 32005946
Heggie GD et al (1987) Clinical pharmacokinetics of 5‑fluorouracil and its metabolites in plasma, urine, and bile. Cancer Res 47(8):2203–2206
pubmed: 3829006
EMA https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/xeloda-epar-product-information_en.pdf . Accessed 22 Apr 2024
Loriot MA et al (2018) Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency screening and securing of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies: Update and recommendations of the French GPCO-Unicancer and RNPGx networks. Bull Cancer 105(4):397–407
doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2018.02.001
pubmed: 29486921
Etienne-Grimaldi MC et al (2023) Current diagnostic and clinical issues of screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency. Eur J Cancer 181:3–17
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.028
pubmed: 36621118
Guellec B‑LC et al (2020) Toxicities associated with chemotherapy regimens containing a fluoropyrimidine: A real-life evaluation in France. Eur J Cancer 124:37–46
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.09.028
Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Morel A (2007) Detection of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency before treatment by fluoropyrimidines. Therapie 62(2):99–103
doi: 10.2515/therapie:2007023
pubmed: 17582309
Boisdron-Celle M et al (2017) Prevention of 5‑fluorouracil-induced early severe toxicity by pre-therapeutic dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening: Assessment of a multiparametric approach. Semin Oncol 44(1):13–23
doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2017.02.008
pubmed: 28395758
Henricks LM et al (2017) Treatment Algorithm for Homozygous or Compound Heterozygous DPYD Variant Allele Carriers With Low-Dose Capecitabine. Jco Precis Oncol 1:1–10
doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00118
pubmed: 35172514
Lunenburg C et al (2016) Prospective DPYD genotyping to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time. Eur J Cancer 54:40–48
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.008
pubmed: 26716401
Launay M et al (2016) Beating the odds: efficacy and toxicity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-driven adaptive dosing of 5‑FU in patients with digestive cancer. Br J Clin Pharmacol 81(1):124–130
doi: 10.1111/bcp.12790
pubmed: 26392323
Sharma BB et al (2021) Pathogenic DPYD Variants and Treatment-Related Mortality in Patients Receiving Fluoropyrimidine Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Oncologist 26(12):1008–1016
doi: 10.1002/onco.13967
pubmed: 34506675
pmcid: 8649021
Wormann B et al (2020) Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Testing prior to Treatment with 5‑Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, and Tegafur: A Consensus Paper. Oncol Res Treat 43(11):628–636
doi: 10.1159/000510258
pubmed: 33099551
Amstutz U et al (2018) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Genotype and Fluoropyrimidine Dosing: 2017 Update. Clin Pharmacol Ther 103(2):210–216
doi: 10.1002/cpt.911
pubmed: 29152729
DGHO https://www.dgho.de/publikationen/stellungnahmen/gute-aerztliche-praxis/dpd-testung/dpd-positionspapier-2020-konsens_logos_final.pdf . Accessed 22 Apr 2024
Lunenburg C et al (2018) Standard fluoropyrimidine dosages in chemoradiation therapy result in an increased risk of severe toxicity in DPYD variant allele carriers. Eur J Cancer 104:210–218
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.138
pubmed: 30361102
Saif MWM et al (2021) Alternative chemoradiotherapy in anal carcinoma patients with mutations in thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genes. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 14:17562848211024464
doi: 10.1177/17562848211024464
pubmed: 34276810
pmcid: 8255561
Hanemaaijer SH et al (2020) Comparison of Carboplatin With 5‑Fluorouracil vs. Cisplatin as Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Front Oncol 10:761
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00761
pubmed: 32582534
pmcid: 7292049
CTCAE https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf . Accessed 22 Apr 2024
Lee J et al (2023) Impact of reduced margin pelvic radiotherapy on gastrointestinal toxicity and outcome in gynecological cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 43:100671
pubmed: 37692995
pmcid: 10482739
Launay M et al (2017) Upfront Dpd Deficiency Detection to Secure 5‑Fu Administration: Part 2—Application to Head-and-Neck Cancer Patients. Clin Cancer Drugs 4(2):122–128
doi: 10.2174/2212697X04666170817123425
pubmed: 29682445
pmcid: 5906055
Verweij J, Pinedo Mitomycin HMC (1990) mechanism of action, usefulness and limitations. Anticancer Drugs 1(1):5–13
doi: 10.1097/00001813-199010000-00002
pubmed: 2131038
Schad MD et al (2019) Radiation-related Lymphopenia after Pelvic Nodal Irradiation for Prostate Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 4(2):323–330
doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.01.005
pubmed: 31011677
pmcid: 6460292
Hoffmann E et al (2022) Radiotherapy planning parameters correlate with changes in the peripheral immune status of patients undergoing curative radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 71(3):541–552
doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-03002-6
pubmed: 34269847
Sanguineti G et al (2019) Leukotoxicity after moderately Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated dose escalated radiotherapy for localized prostate Cancer: a secondary analysis from a randomized study. Radiat Oncol 14(1):23
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1223-2
pubmed: 30700317
pmcid: 6352380
Lunenburg C et al (2020) Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of DPYD and fluoropyrimidines. Eur J Hum Genet 28(4):508–517
doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0540-0
pubmed: 31745289
Desilets A et al (2022) Upfront DPYD Genotyping and Toxicity Associated with Fluoropyrimidine-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Oropharyngeal Carcinomas: A Work in Progress. Curr Oncol 29(2):497–509
doi: 10.3390/curroncol29020045
pubmed: 35200545
pmcid: 8870563