Clotilde Gaible1, Céline Narjoz2, Marie-Anne Loriot2, Stéphane Roueff1, Nicolas Pallet3. 1. Department of Nephrology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Paris, Paris, France. 2. Service de Biochimie, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Paris, 75015, Paris, France. 3. Service de Biochimie, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Paris, 75015, Paris, France. Nicolas.pallet@aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is recommended prior to the administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. However, the best strategy to identify DPD deficiency in End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. METHODS: We assessed the characteristics of both DPD phenotypes and DPYD genotypes in 20 dialyzed patients before and after dialysis session. The extent to which the concentrations of uracil [U] and dihydrouracil [UH2] were affected by dialysis was evaluated. RESULTS: Mean [U] was 14 ± 3.3 ng/ml before the dialysis session, and 7.9 ± 2.7 ng/ml after. Notably, mean [U] in 119 non-ESRD patients during the same timeline was 8.7 ± 3.9 ng/ml, which is similar to [U] values after dialysis session (p = 0.38). [U] values > 16 ng/ml were measured in 4 ESRD patients (20%), whereas the rate was 3.3% in the non-ESRD cohort. Whole gene sequencing did not reveal DPYD deleterious allelic variants in the 4 ESRD patients with [U] values > 16 ng/ml. The profile of [UH2] values during dialysis was similar to that of [U]: 385 ± 86 ng/ml before, and 185 ± 62 ng/ml after (mean reduction rate 42.5%). Thus, [UH2]:[U] ratio remained unaffected by dialysis, and was similar to the values in non-ESRD patients (22.4 ± 7.1). CONCLUSION: Phenotyping based on measuring plasma [U] before a dialysis sessions in ESRD patients is associated with an unacceptable high rate of false positives. The optimal strategy for the identification of patients with DPD deficiency in this population would be the monitor the [UH2]:[U] ratio, which remains unaffected.
BACKGROUND: Pretherapeutic screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is recommended prior to the administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. However, the best strategy to identify DPD deficiency in End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. METHODS: We assessed the characteristics of both DPD phenotypes and DPYD genotypes in 20 dialyzed patients before and after dialysis session. The extent to which the concentrations of uracil [U] and dihydrouracil [UH2] were affected by dialysis was evaluated. RESULTS: Mean [U] was 14 ± 3.3 ng/ml before the dialysis session, and 7.9 ± 2.7 ng/ml after. Notably, mean [U] in 119 non-ESRD patients during the same timeline was 8.7 ± 3.9 ng/ml, which is similar to [U] values after dialysis session (p = 0.38). [U] values > 16 ng/ml were measured in 4 ESRD patients (20%), whereas the rate was 3.3% in the non-ESRD cohort. Whole gene sequencing did not reveal DPYD deleterious allelic variants in the 4 ESRD patients with [U] values > 16 ng/ml. The profile of [UH2] values during dialysis was similar to that of [U]: 385 ± 86 ng/ml before, and 185 ± 62 ng/ml after (mean reduction rate 42.5%). Thus, [UH2]:[U] ratio remained unaffected by dialysis, and was similar to the values in non-ESRD patients (22.4 ± 7.1). CONCLUSION: Phenotyping based on measuring plasma [U] before a dialysis sessions in ESRD patients is associated with an unacceptable high rate of false positives. The optimal strategy for the identification of patients with DPD deficiency in this population would be the monitor the [UH2]:[U] ratio, which remains unaffected.
Authors: Anne M Butler; Andrew F Olshan; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; Jessie K Edwards; Matthew E Nielsen; Stephanie B Wheeler; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Johanna Sistonen; Barbara Büchel; Tanja K Froehlich; Dominic Kummer; Stefano Fontana; Markus Joerger; André B P van Kuilenburg; Carlo R Largiadèr Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: N Janus; V Launay-Vacher; A Thyss; H Boulanger; O Moranne; M S Islam; J-P Durande; M Ducret; L Juillard; Z Soltani; G Motte; J Rottembourg; G Deray; J Thariat Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ursula Amstutz; Linda M Henricks; Steven M Offer; Julia Barbarino; Jan H M Schellens; Jesse J Swen; Teri E Klein; Howard L McLeod; Kelly E Caudle; Robert B Diasio; Matthias Schwab Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Didier Meulendijks; Linda M Henricks; Gabe S Sonke; Maarten J Deenen; Tanja K Froehlich; Ursula Amstutz; Carlo R Largiadèr; Barbara A Jennings; Anthony M Marinaki; Jeremy D Sanderson; Zdenek Kleibl; Petra Kleiblova; Matthias Schwab; Ulrich M Zanger; Claire Palles; Ian Tomlinson; Eva Gross; André B P van Kuilenburg; Cornelis J A Punt; Miriam Koopman; Jos H Beijnen; Annemieke Cats; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Didier Meulendijks; Linda M Henricks; Bart A W Jacobs; Abidin Aliev; Maarten J Deenen; Niels de Vries; Hilde Rosing; Erik van Werkhoven; Anthonius de Boer; Jos H Beijnen; Caroline M P W Mandigers; Marcel Soesan; Annemieke Cats; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 7.640