Maarten J. Deenen

Relationship between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Haplotypes in DPYD and Toxicity and Efficacy of Capecitabine in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: To explore the effect of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and haplotypes on outcome of capecitabine. Experimental Design: Germline DNA was available from 568 previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer participating in the CAIRO2 trial, assigned to capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab ± cetuximab. The coding region of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) was sequenced in 45 cases with grade 3 or more capecitabine-related toxicity and in 100 randomly selected controls (cohort). Most discriminating (P < 0.1) or frequently occurring (>1%) nonsynonymous SNPs were analyzed in all 568 patients. SNPs and haplotypes were associated with toxicity, capecitabine dose modifications, and survival. Results: A total of 29 SNPs were detected in the case–cohort analysis, of which 8 were analyzed in all 568 patients. Of the patients polymorphic for DPYD IVS14+1G>A, 2846A>T, and 1236G>A, 71% (5 of 7), 63% (5 of 8), and 50% (14 of 28) developed grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, respectively, compared with 24% in the overall population. All patients polymorphic for IVS14+1G>A developed any grade 3 to 4 toxicity, including one possibly capecitabine-related death. Because of toxicity, a mean capecitabine dose reduction of 50% was applied in IVS14+1G>A and 25% in 2846A>T variant allele carriers. Patients were categorized into six haplotype groups: one predicted for reduced (10%), and two for increased risks (41% and 33%) for severe diarrhea. Individual SNPs were not associated with overall survival, whereas one haplotype was associated with overall survival [HR (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.35–0.95)]. Conclusions: DPYD IVS14+1G>A and 2846A>T predict for severe toxicity to capecitabine, for which patients require dose reductions. Haplotypes assist in selecting patients at risk for toxicity to capecitabine. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3455–68. ©2011 AACR.

Clinical relevance of DPYD variants c.1679T>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, and c.1601G>A as predictors of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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). FINDINGS 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). INTERPRETATION 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. FUNDING None.

Upfront Genotyping of DPYD*2A to Individualize Fluoropyrimidine Therapy: A Safety and Cost Analysis

PURPOSE Fluoropyrimidines are frequently prescribed anticancer drugs. A polymorphism in the fluoropyrimidine metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD; ie, DPYD*2A) is strongly associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced severe and life-threatening toxicity. This study determined the feasibility, safety, and cost of DPYD*2A genotype-guided dosing. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients intended to be treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were prospectively genotyped for DPYD*2A before start of therapy. Variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of ≥ 50% followed by dose titration based on tolerance. Toxicity was the primary end point and was compared with historical controls (ie, DPYD*2A variant allele carriers receiving standard dose described in literature) and with DPYD*2A wild-type patients treated with the standard dose in this study. Secondary end points included a model-based cost analysis, as well as pharmacokinetic and DPD enzyme activity analyses. RESULTS A total of 2,038 patients were prospectively screened for DPYD*2A, of whom 22 (1.1%) were heterozygous polymorphic. DPYD*2A variant allele carriers were treated with a median dose-intensity of 48% (range, 17% to 91%). The risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicity was thereby significantly reduced from 73% (95% CI, 58% to 85%) in historical controls (n = 48) to 28% (95% CI, 10% to 53%) by genotype-guided dosing (P < .001); drug-induced death was reduced from 10% to 0%. Adequate treatment of genotype-guided dosing was further demonstrated by a similar incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity compared with wild-type patients receiving the standard dose (23%; P = .64) and by similar systemic fluorouracil (active drug) exposure. Furthermore, average total treatment cost per patient was lower for screening (€2,772 [

Part 2: Pharmacogenetic Variability in Drug Transport and Phase I Anticancer Drug Metabolism

3,767]) than for nonscreening (€2,817 [

Prospective DPYD genotyping to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time

3,828]), outweighing screening costs. CONCLUSION DPYD*2A is strongly associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced severe and life-threatening toxicity. DPYD*2A genotype-guided dosing results in adequate systemic drug exposure and significantly improves safety of fluoropyrimidine therapy for the individual patient. On a population level, upfront genotyping seemed cost saving.

Simultaneous Integrated Boost–Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Concomitant Capecitabine and Mitomycin C for Locally Advanced Anal Carcinoma: A Phase 1 Study

Equivalent drug doses in anticancer chemotherapy may lead to wide interpatient variability in drug response reflected by differences in treatment response or in severity of adverse drug reactions. Differences in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) behavior of a drug contribute to variation in treatment outcome among patients. An important factor responsible for this variability is genetic polymorphism in genes that are involved in PK/PD processes, including drug transporters, phase I and II metabolizing enzymes, and drug targets, and other genes that interfere with drug response. In order to achieve personalized pharmacotherapy, drug dosing and treatment selection based on genotype might help to increase treatment efficacy while reducing unnecessary toxicity. We present a series of four reviews about pharmacogenetic variability in anticancer drug treatment. This is the second review in the series and is focused on genetic variability in genes encoding drug transporters (ABCB1 and ABCG2) and phase I drug-metabolizing enzymes (CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, DPYD, CDA and BLMH) and their associations with anticancer drug treatment outcome. Based on the literature reviewed, opportunities for patient-tailored anticancer therapy are presented.

Part 3: Pharmacogenetic Variability in Phase II Anticancer Drug Metabolism

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine (CAP) are among the most frequently prescribed anticancer drugs. They are inactivated in the liver by the enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). Up to 5% of the population is DPD deficient and these patients have a significantly increased risk of severe and potentially lethal toxicity when treated with regular doses of 5-FU or CAP. DPD is encoded by the gene DPYD and variants in DPYD can lead to a decreased DPD activity. Although prospective DPYD genotyping is a valuable tool to identify patients with DPD deficiency, and thus those at risk for severe and potential life-threatening toxicity, prospective genotyping has not yet been implemented in daily clinical care. Our goal was to present the available evidence in favour of prospective genotyping, including discussion of unjustified worries on cost-effectiveness, and potential underdosing. We conclude that there is convincing evidence to implement prospective DPYD genotyping with an upfront dose adjustment in DPD deficient patients. Immediate benefit in patient care can be expected through decreasing toxicity, while maintaining efficacy.

Part 1: Background, Methodology, and Clinical Adoption of Pharmacogenetics

PURPOSE Newer radiation techniques, and the application of continuous 5-FU exposure during radiation therapy using oral capecitabine may improve the treatment of anal cancer. This phase 1, dose-finding study assessed the feasibility and efficacy of simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy (SIB-IMRT) with concomitant capecitabine and mitomycin C in locally advanced anal cancer, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic analyses. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with locally advanced anal carcinoma were treated with SIB-IMRT in 33 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy to the primary tumor and macroscopically involved lymph nodes and 33 fractions of 1.5 Gy electively to the bilateral iliac and inguinal lymph node areas. Patients received a sequential radiation boost dose of 3 × 1.8 Gy on macroscopic residual tumor if this was still present in week 5 of treatment. Mitomycin C 10 mg/m(2) (maximum 15 mg) was administered intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine was given orally in a dose-escalated fashion (500-825 mg/m(2) b.i.d.) on irradiation days, until dose-limiting toxicity emerged in ≥2 of maximally 6 patients. An additional 8 patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS A total of 18 patients were included. The MTD of capecitabine was determined to be 825 mg/m(2) b.i.d. The predominant acute grade ≥3 toxicities included radiation dermatitis (50%), fatigue (22%), and pain (6%). Fifteen patients (83% [95%-CI: 66%-101%]) achieved a complete response, and 3 (17%) patients a partial response. With a median follow-up of 28 months, none of the complete responders, and 2 partial responders had relapsed. CONCLUSIONS SIB-IMRT with concomitant single dose mitomycin C and capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on irradiation days resulted in an acceptable safety profile, and proved to be a tolerable and effective treatment regimen for locally advanced anal cancer.

Rs895819 in MIR27A improves the predictive value of DPYD variants to identify patients at risk of severe fluoropyrimidine‐associated toxicity

Equivalent drug doses may lead to wide interpatient variability in drug response to anticancer therapy. Known determinants that may affect the pharmacological response to a drug are, among others, nongenetic factors, including age, gender, use of comedication, and liver and renal function. Nonetheless, these covariates do not explain all the observed interpatient variability. Differences in genetic constitution among patients have been identified to be important factors that contribute to differences in drug response. Because genetic polymorphism may affect the expression and activity of proteins encoded, it is a key covariate that is responsible for variability in drug metabolism, drug transport, and pharmacodynamic drug effects. We present a series of four reviews about pharmacogenetic variability. This third part in the series of reviews is focused on genetic variability in phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes (glutathione S-transferases, uridine diphosphoglucuronosyl transferases, methyltransferases, sulfotransferases, and N-acetyltransferases) and discusses the effects of genetic polymorphism within the genes encoding these enzymes on anticancer drug therapy outcome. Based on the literature reviewed, opportunities for patient-tailored anticancer therapy are proposed.

Improved pharmacodynamic assay for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells

Equivalent drug doses may lead to wide interpatient variability with regard to drug response, reflected by differences in drug activity and normal tissue toxicity. A major factor responsible for this variability is variation among patients in their genetic constitution. Genetic polymorphism may affect the activity of proteins encoded, which in turn may lead to changes in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic behavior of a drug, observed as differences in drug transport, drug metabolism, and pharmacodynamic drug effects. Recent insights into the functional effect of polymorphism in genes that are involved in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs have provided opportunities for patient-tailored therapy in oncology. Individualized pharmacotherapy based on genotype will help to increase treatment efficacy while reducing unnecessary toxicity, especially of drugs characterized by a narrow therapeutic window, such as anticancer drugs. We provide a series of four reviews aimed at implementing pharmacogenetic-based drug and dose prescription in the daily clinical setting for the practicing oncologist. This first part in the series describes the functional impact of genetic polymorphism and provides a general background to and insight into possible clinical consequences of pharmacogenetic variability. It also discusses different methodologies for clinical pharmacogenetic studies and provides a concise overview about the different laboratory technologies for genetic mutation analysis that are currently widely applied. Subsequently, pharmacogenetic association studies in anticancer drug transport, phase I and II drug metabolism, and pharmacodynamic drug effects are discussed in the rest of the series. Opportunities for patient-tailored pharmacotherapy are highlighted.