Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) tumour expression may provide added value to human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) tumour expression in predicting survival following pyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsDPD and hENT1 immunohistochemistry and scoring was completed on tumour cores from 238 patients with pancreatic cancer in the ESPAC-3(v2) trial, randomised to either postoperative gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5FU/FA).ResultsDPD tumour expression was associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio, HR = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI = 1.21–2.49], p = 0.003). This was significant in the 5FU/FA arm (HR = 2.07 [95% CI = 1.22–3.53], p = 0.007), but not in the gemcitabine arm (HR = 1.47 [0.91–3.37], p = 0.119). High hENT1 tumour expression was associated with increased survival in gemcitabine treated (HR = 0.56 [0.38–0.82], p = 0.003) but not in 5FU/FA treated patients (HR = 1.19 [0.80–1.78], p = 0.390). In patients with low hENT1 tumour expression, high DPD tumour expression was associated with a worse median [95% CI] survival in the 5FU/FA arm (9.7 [5.3–30.4] vs 29.2 [19.5–41.9] months, p = 0.002) but not in the gemcitabine arm (14.0 [9.1–15.7] vs. 18.0 [7.6–15.3] months, p = 1.000). The interaction of treatment arm and DPD expression was not significant (p = 0.303), but the interaction of treatment arm and hENT1 expression was (p = 0.009).ConclusionDPD tumour expression was a negative prognostic biomarker. Together with tumour expression of hENT1, DPD tumour expression defined patient subgroups that might benefit from either postoperative 5FU/FA or gemcitabine.

Purpose To describe concentration versus time profiles of capecitabine and its metabolites 5′-DFUR, 5′-DFCR and 5-FU, depending on tablet formulation and on frequent and/or relevant genetic polymorphisms of cytidine deaminase, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, thymidylate synthase and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). Methods In 46 cancer patients on chronic capecitabine treatment, who voluntarily participated in the study, individual therapeutic doses were replaced on four consecutive mornings by the study medication. The appropriate number of 500 mg test (T) or reference (R) capecitabine tablets was given in randomly allocated sequences TRTR or RTRT (replicate design). Average bioavailability was assessed by ANOVA. Results Thirty female and 16 male patients suffering from gastrointestinal or breast cancer (mean age 53.4 years; mean dose 1739 mg) were included. The T/R ratios for AUC 0– t (last) and C max were 96.7 % (98 % CI 90.7–103.2 %) and 87.2 % (98 % CI 74.9–101.5 %), respectively. Within-subject variability for AUC 0– t (last) and C max (coefficient of variation for R) was 16.5 and 30.2 %, respectively. Similar results were seen for all metabolites. No serious adverse events occurred. For the MTHFR C677T (rs1801133) genotype, an increasing number of 677C alleles showed borderline correlation with an increasing elimination half-life of capecitabine ( p  = 0.043). Conclusions The extent of absorption was similar for T and R, but the rate of absorption was slightly lower for T. While such differences are not considered as clinically relevant, formal bioequivalence criteria were missed. A possible, probably indirect role of the MTHFR genotype in pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and/or 5-FU should be investigated in further studies.

The best-known cause of intolerance to fluoropyrimidines is dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency, which can result from deleterious polymorphisms in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD), including DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T. Three other variants—DPYD c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, and c.1601G>A—have been associated with DPD deficiency, but no definitive evidence for the clinical validity of these variants is available. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the clinical validity of c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, and c.1601G>A as predictors of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. We did a systematic review of the literature published before Dec 17, 2014, to identify cohort studies investigating associations between DPYD c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, and c.1601G>A and severe (grade ≥3) fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil, capecitabine, or tegafur-uracil as single agents, in combination with other anticancer drugs, or with radiotherapy). Individual patient data were retrieved and analysed in a multivariable analysis to obtain an adjusted relative risk (RR). Effect estimates were pooled by use of a random-effects meta-analysis. The threshold for significance was set at a p value of less than 0·0167 (Bonferroni correction). 7365 patients from eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. DPYD c.1679T>G was significantly associated with fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity (adjusted RR 4·40, 95% CI 2·08–9·30, p<0·0001), as was c.1236G>A/HapB3 (1·59, 1·29–1·97, p<0·0001). The association between c.1601G>A and fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity was not significant (adjusted RR 1·52, 95% CI 0·86–2·70, p=0·15). Analysis of individual types of toxicity showed consistent associations of c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A/HapB3 with gastrointestinal toxicity (adjusted RR 5·72, 95% CI 1·40–23·33, p=0·015; and 2·04, 1·49–2·78, p<0·0001, respectively) and haematological toxicity (adjusted RR 9·76, 95% CI 3·03–31·48, p=0·00014; and 2·07, 1·17–3·68, p=0·013, respectively), but not with hand-foot syndrome. DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T were also significantly associated with severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity (adjusted RR 2·85, 95% CI 1·75–4·62, p<0·0001; and 3·02, 2·22–4·10, p<0·0001, respectively). DPYD variants c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A/HapB3 are clinically relevant predictors of fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Upfront screening for these variants, in addition to the established variants DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T, is recommended to improve the safety of patients with cancer treated with fluoropyrimidines. None.

We evaluated the predictive relevance of several biomarkers on the survival of patients with stage III colorectal cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy of oral fluoropyrimidines. This was a multicenter phase II trial on adult patients with histologically confirmed resected stage III (Dukes' C) colorectal cancer. Patients received oral doxifluridine (800 mg/m2/day) in 3 divided doses, or oral uracil/tegafur (UFT) (400 mg/m2/day) in 2 divided doses for 5 days, every 7 days for 12 months with a 5-year follow-up. Outcome measures were disease-free survival and tissue markers [thymidine phosphorylase (TP), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) protein levels and TP, DPD, thymidylate synthase (TS) and orotate phosphoribosyltransferase (OPRT) mRNA levels in tumor samples and TS tandem-repeat type in blood samples]. There was a significant association between the intratumoral TP/DPD enzyme ratio and disease-free survival when the model included the drug, the parameter and the interactions between them [hazard ratio (HR)=2.76; P=0.00469]. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was statistically significantly higher in patients with high TP/DPD ratios [median ≥2.63: 71.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4-80.0] compared to patients with low TP/DPD ratios (<2.63: 57.0%; 95% CI 46.3-66.3) (log-rank P=0.0277) following adjuvant therapy with oral fluoropyrimidines. No significant association was observed between the intratumoral TP/DPD enzyme ratio (cut-off value 2.0) and the disease-free survival rate in the doxifluridine group; primary endpoint (log-rank P=0.6850). The magnitude of the intratumoral TP/DPD enzyme ratio may be a potential indicator for the individualization of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with oral fluoropyrimidines for stage III colorectal cancer.

Background Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is recommended or required prior to the administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. However, the best strategy to identify DPD-deficient patients remains elusive. Methods Among a nationwide cohort of 5886 phenotyped patients with cancer who were screened for DPD deficiency over a 3 years period, we assessed the characteristics of both DPD phenotypes and DPYD genotypes in a subgroup of 3680 patients who had completed the two tests. The extent to which defective allelic variants of DPYD predict DPD activity as estimated by the plasma concentrations of uracil [U] and its product dihydrouracil [UH 2 ] was evaluated. Results When [U] was used to monitor DPD activity, 6.8% of the patients were classified as having DPD deficiency ([U] > 16 ng/ml), while the [UH 2 ]:[U] ratio identified 11.5% of the patients as having DPD deficiency (UH 2 ]:[U] < 10). [U] classified two patients (0.05%) with complete DPD deficiency (> 150 ng/ml), and [UH 2 ]:[U] < 1 identified three patients (0.08%) with a complete DPD deficiency. A defective DPYD variant was present in 4.5% of the patients, and two patients (0.05%) carrying 2 defective variants of DPYD were predicted to have low metabolism. The mutation status of DPYD displayed a very low positive predictive value in identifying individuals with DPD deficiency, although a higher predictive value was observed when [UH 2 ]:[U] was used to measure DPD activity. Whole exon sequencing of the DPYD gene in 111 patients with DPD deficiency and a “wild-type” genotype (based on the four most common variants) identified seven heterozygous carriers of a defective allelic variant. Conclusions Frequent genetic DPYD variants have low performances in predicting partial DPD deficiency when evaluated by [U] alone, and [UH 2 ]:[U] might better reflect the impact of genetic variants on DPD activity. A clinical trial comparing toxicity rates after dose adjustment according to the results of genotyping or phenotyping testing to detect DPD deficiency will provide critical information on the best strategy to identify DPD deficiency.

Background: We investigated the predictive value of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotype, measured as pretreatment serum uracil and dihydrouracil concentrations, for severe as well as fatal fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity in 550 patients treated previously with fluoropyrimidines during a prospective multicenter study. Methods: Pretreatment serum concentrations of uracil and dihydrouracil were measured using a validated LC-MS/MS method. The primary endpoint of this analysis was global (any) severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity, that is, grade ⩾3 toxicity according to the NCI CTC-AE v3.0, occurring during the first cycle of treatment. The predictive value of uracil and the uracil/dihydrouracil ratio for early severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity were compared. Pharmacogenetic variants in DPYD (c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, c.1129-5923C>G, and c.1601G>A) and TYMS ( TYMS 5′-UTR VNTR and TYMS 3′-UTR 6-bp ins/del) were measured and tested for associations with severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity to compare predictive value with DPD phenotype. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to control for type I errors at level q <0.050 (corresponding to P <0.010). Results: Uracil was superior to the dihydrouracil/uracil ratio as a predictor of severe toxicity. High pretreatment uracil concentrations (>16 ng ml −1 ) were strongly associated with global severe toxicity (OR 5.3, P =0.009), severe gastrointestinal toxicity (OR 33.7, P <0.0001), toxicity-related hospitalisation (OR 16.9, P <0.0001), as well as fatal treatment-related toxicity (OR 44.8, P =0.001). None of the DPYD variants alone, or TYMS variants alone, were associated with severe toxicity. Conclusions: High pretreatment uracil concentration was strongly predictive of severe, including fatal, fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity, and is a highly promising phenotypic marker to identify patients at risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity.

Gliomas exhibit high heterogeneity and poor prognosis. Despite substantial progress has been made at the genomic and transcriptomic levels, comprehensive proteomic characterization and its implications remain largely unexplored. In this study, we perform proteomic profiling of gliomas using 343 formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumor samples and 53 normal-appearing brain samples from 188 patients, integrating these data with genomic panel information and clinical outcomes. The proteomic analysis uncovers two distinct subgroups: Subgroup 1, the metabolic neural subgroup, enriched in metabolic enzymes and neurotransmitter receptor proteins, and Subgroup 2, the immune subgroup, marked by upregulation of immune and inflammatory proteins. These proteomic subgroups show significant differences in prognosis, tumorigenesis, microenvironment dysregulation, and potential therapeutics, highlighting the critical roles of metabolic and immune processes in glioma biology and patient outcomes. Through a detailed investigation of metabolic pathways guided by our proteomic findings, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) and thymidine phosphorylase (TYMP) emerge as potential prognostic biomarkers linked to the reprogramming of nucleotide metabolism. Functional validation in patient-derived glioma stem cells and animal models highlights nucleotide metabolism as a promising therapy target for gliomas. This integrated multi-omics analysis introduces a proteomic classification for gliomas and identifies DPYD and TYMP as key metabolic biomarkers, offering insights into glioma pathogenesis and potential treatment strategies. Comprehensive molecular characterisations could shed light on the high heterogeneity and poor prognosis of gliomas. Here, the authors perform proteomic profiling of 188 glioma patients, revealing immune and metabolic neuron-related subgroups as well as metabolic biomarkers linked to prognosis.

Cancer caused by fundamental defects in cell cycle regulation leads to uncontrolled growth of cells. In spite of the treatment with chemotherapeutic agents of varying nature, multiple resistance mechanisms are identified in cancer cells. Similarly, numerous variations, which decrease the metabolism of chemotherapeutics agents and thereby increasing the toxicity of anticancer drugs have been identified. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is an anticancer drug widely used to treat many cancers in the human body. Its broad targeting range is based upon its capacity to act as a uracil analogue, thereby disrupting RNA and DNA synthesis. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is an enzyme majorly involved in the metabolism of pyrimidines in the human body and has the same metabolising effect on 5-FU, a pyrimidine analogue. Multiple mutations in the DPD gene have been linked to 5-FU toxicity and inadequate dosages. DPD inhibitors have also been used to inhibit excessive degradation of 5-FU for meeting appropriate dosage requirements. This article focusses on the role of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in the metabolism of the anticancer drug 5-FU and other associated drugs.

Deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), encoded by the DPYD gene, is associated with severe toxicity induced by the anti-cancer drug 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). DPYD genotyping of four recommended polymorphisms is widely used to predict toxicity, yet their prediction power is limited. Increasing availability of next generation sequencing (NGS) will allow us to screen rare variants, predicting a larger fraction of DPD deficiencies. Genotype–phenotype correlations were investigated by performing DPYD exon sequencing in 94 patients assessed for DPD deficiency by the 5-FU degradation rate (5-FUDR) assay. Association of common variants with 5-FUDR was analyzed with the SNPStats software. Functional interpretation of rare variants was performed by in-silico analysis (using the HSF system and PredictSNP) and literature review. A total of 23 rare variants and 8 common variants were detected. Among common variants, a significant association was found between homozygosity for the rs72728438 (c.1974+75A>G) and decreased 5-FUDR. Haplotype analysis did not detect significant associations with 5-FUDR. Overall, in our sample cohort, NGS exon sequencing allowed us to explain 42.5% of the total DPD deficiencies. NGS sharply improves prediction of DPD deficiencies, yet a broader collection of genotype–phenotype association data is needed to enable the clinical use of sequencing data.

PurposeSeveral clinical guidelines recommend genetic screening of DPYD, including coverage of the variants c.1905 + 1G>A(DPYD*2A), c.1679T>G(DPYD*13), c.2846A>T, and c.1129-5923C>G, before initiating treatment with fluoropyrimidines. However, this screening is often inadequate at predicting the occurrence of severe fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity in patients.MethodsUsing a complementary approach combining whole DPYD exome sequencing and in silico and structural analysis, as well as phenotyping of DPD by measuring uracilemia (U), dihydrouracilemia (UH2), and the UH2/U ratio in plasma, we were able to characterize and interpret DPYD variants in 28 patients with severe fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity after negative screening.ResultsTwenty-five out of 28 patients (90%) had at least 1 variant in the DPYD coding sequence, and 42% of the variants (6/14) were classified as potentially deleterious by at least 2 of the following algorithms: SIFT, Poly-Phen-2, and DPYD varifier. We identified two very rare deleterious mutations, namely, c.2087G>A (p.R696H) and c.2324T>G (p.L775W). We were able to demonstrate partial DPD deficiency, as measured by the UH2/U ratio in a patient carrying the variant p.L775W for the first time.ConclusionWhole exon sequencing of DPYD in patients with suspicion of partial DPD deficiency can help to identify rare or new variants that lead to enzyme inactivation. Combining different techniques can yield abundant information without increasing workload and cost burden, thus making it a useful approach for implementation in patient care.