BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the initial enzyme in the catabolism of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and DPD deficiency is an important pharmacogenetic syndrome. So far, only very limited information is available regarding the pharmacokinetics of 5FU in patients with a (partial) DPD deficiency and no limited sampling models have been developed taking into account the non-linear pharmacokinetic behaviour of 5FU. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of 5FU and to develop a limited sampling strategy to detect decreased 5FU elimination in patients with a c.1905+1G>A-related DPD deficiency. METHODS: Thirty patients, heterozygous for the c.1905+1G>A mutation in DPYD, and 18 control patients received a dose of 5FU 300 mg/m2 and/or 5FU 450 mg/m2, followed by pharmacokinetic analysis of the 5FU plasma levels. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in order to develop a compartmental pharmacokinetic model suitable for a limited sampling strategy. Clinical aspects of treating DPD-deficient patients with 5FU-based chemotherapy were assessed from the retrospectively collected clinical data. RESULTS: In a two-compartment model with Michaelis-Menten elimination, the mean maximum enzymatic conversion capacity (V(max)) value was 40% lower in DPD-deficient patients compared with controls (p < 0.001). Using a limited sampling strategy, with V(max) values calculated from 5FU concentrations at 30 or 60 minutes, significant differences were observed between DPD-deficient patients and controls at both dose levels (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value and negative predictive value for V(max), calculated from 5FU levels at 60 minutes, were 96% and 88%, respectively, in patients treated with a single dose of 5FU 300 mg/m2. All seven DPD-deficient patients (two males and five females) who had been genotyped prior to initiation of standard 5FU-containing chemotherapy developed grade 3-4 toxicity, with one case of lethal toxicity in a female patient. No grade 4 toxicity or lethal outcome was observed in 13 DPD-deficient patients treated with reduced doses of 5FU. The average dose of 5FU in DPD-deficient patients with mild toxicity (grade ≤2) was 61 ± 16% of the normal 5FU dose (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: Profound differences in the elimination of 5FU could be detected between DPD-deficient patients and control patients. Pharmacokinetic 5FU profiling, using a single 5FU concentration at 60 minutes, may be useful for identification of DPD-deficient patients in order to reduce severe toxicity. Furthermore, treatment of DPD-deficient patients with standard 5FU-containing chemotherapy was associated with severe (lethal) toxicity.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the initial enzyme in the catabolism of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and DPD deficiency is an important pharmacogenetic syndrome. So far, only very limited information is available regarding the pharmacokinetics of 5FU in patients with a (partial) DPD deficiency and no limited sampling models have been developed taking into account the non-linear pharmacokinetic behaviour of 5FU. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of 5FU and to develop a limited sampling strategy to detect decreased 5FU elimination in patients with a c.1905+1G>A-related DPD deficiency. METHODS: Thirty patients, heterozygous for the c.1905+1G>A mutation in DPYD, and 18 control patients received a dose of 5FU 300 mg/m2 and/or 5FU 450 mg/m2, followed by pharmacokinetic analysis of the 5FU plasma levels. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in order to develop a compartmental pharmacokinetic model suitable for a limited sampling strategy. Clinical aspects of treating DPD-deficientpatients with 5FU-based chemotherapy were assessed from the retrospectively collected clinical data. RESULTS: In a two-compartment model with Michaelis-Menten elimination, the mean maximum enzymatic conversion capacity (V(max)) value was 40% lower in DPD-deficientpatients compared with controls (p < 0.001). Using a limited sampling strategy, with V(max) values calculated from 5FU concentrations at 30 or 60 minutes, significant differences were observed between DPD-deficientpatients and controls at both dose levels (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value and negative predictive value for V(max), calculated from 5FU levels at 60 minutes, were 96% and 88%, respectively, in patients treated with a single dose of 5FU 300 mg/m2. All seven DPD-deficientpatients (two males and five females) who had been genotyped prior to initiation of standard 5FU-containing chemotherapy developed grade 3-4 toxicity, with one case of lethal toxicity in a female patient. No grade 4 toxicity or lethal outcome was observed in 13 DPD-deficientpatients treated with reduced doses of 5FU. The average dose of 5FU in DPD-deficientpatients with mild toxicity (grade ≤2) was 61 ± 16% of the normal 5FU dose (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: Profound differences in the elimination of 5FU could be detected between DPD-deficientpatients and control patients. Pharmacokinetic 5FU profiling, using a single 5FU concentration at 60 minutes, may be useful for identification of DPD-deficientpatients in order to reduce severe toxicity. Furthermore, treatment of DPD-deficientpatients with standard 5FU-containing chemotherapy was associated with severe (lethal) toxicity.
Authors: Maarten J Deenen; Jolien Tol; Artur M Burylo; Valerie D Doodeman; Anthonius de Boer; Andrew Vincent; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Paul H M Smits; Jos H Beijnen; Cornelis J A Punt; Jan H M Schellens; Annemieke Cats Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Gusella; G Crepaldi; C Barile; A Bononi; D Menon; S Toso; D Scapoli; L Stievano; E Ferrazzi; F Grigoletto; M Ferrari; R Padrini Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: G Bocci; R Danesi; A D Di Paolo; F Innocenti; G Allegrini; A Falcone; A Melosi; M Battistoni; G Barsanti; P F Conte; M Del Tacca Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: G Codacci-Pisanelli; H M Pinedo; J Lankelma; C J Van Groeningen; A B P Van Kuilenburg; A H Van Gennip; G J Peters Journal: J Chemother Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 1.714
Authors: Matthias Schwab; Ulrich M Zanger; Claudia Marx; Elke Schaeffeler; Kathrin Klein; Jürgen Dippon; Reinhold Kerb; Julia Blievernicht; Joachim Fischer; Ute Hofmann; Carsten Bokemeyer; Michel Eichelbaum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J G Maring; A B P van Kuilenburg; J Haasjes; H Piersma; H J M Groen; D R A Uges; A H Van Gennip; E G E De Vries Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-04-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A B P van Kuilenburg; M-C Etienne-Grimaldi; A Mahamat; J Meijer; P Laurent-Puig; S Olschwang; M-P Gaub; R C M Hennekam; D Benchimol; S Houry; C Letoublon; F-N Gilly; D Pezet; T Andre; J-L Faucheron; A Abderrahim-Ferkoune; R Vijzelaar; B Pradere; G Milano Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Jan H Beumer; Edward Chu; Carmen Allegra; Yusuke Tanigawara; Gerard Milano; Robert Diasio; Tae Won Kim; Ron H Mathijssen; Li Zhang; Dirk Arnold; Katsuki Muneoka; Narikazu Boku; Markus Joerger Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: T Elraiyah; C R Jerde; S Shrestha; R Wu; Q Nie; N H Giama; V Sarangi; L R Roberts; S M Offer; R B Diasio Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: G Gentile; A Botticelli; L Lionetto; F Mazzuca; M Simmaco; P Marchetti; M Borro Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Welley S Loc; Samuel S Linton; Zachary R Wilczynski; Gail L Matters; Christopher O McGovern; Thomas Abraham; Todd Fox; Christopher M Gigliotti; Xiaomeng Tang; Amra Tabakovic; Jo Ann Martin; Gary A Clawson; Jill P Smith; Peter J Butler; Mark Kester; James H Adair Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: S Hamzic; N Wenger; T K Froehlich; M Joerger; S Aebi; C R Largiadèr; U Amstutz Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.550