Kyoin Koo1, Amy L Pasternak1, N Lynn Henry2,3, Vaibhav Sahai2,3, Daniel L Hertz1. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients who carry reduced-activity DPYD polymorphisms have increased fluoropyrimidine (FP) toxicity risk. Although pretreatment DPYD testing is recommended throughout most of Europe, it is not recommended in the United States, and adoption has been limited. The objective of this survey was to describe the current practice in the United States regarding pretreatment DPYD testing and understand the factors deterring oncologists from ordering testing. METHODS: Survey invitations were e-mailed to 325 medical oncologists practicing in the United States who are members of the SWOG Cancer Research Network Gastrointestinal Cancer, Breast Cancer, or Early Therapeutics Committees. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey responses. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 59 (18.2%) US medical oncologists, of whom 98% strongly or somewhat agree that patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency have increased toxicity risk and 96% would modify FP dosing for a patient with known DPD deficiency. However, only 32% strongly or somewhat agree that pretreatment DPYD testing is useful to inform FP treatment, 20% have ever ordered pretreatment testing, and 3% order testing for at least 10% of their FP-treated patients. The most important factors that deter oncologists from ordering testing were low prevalence of DPD deficiency (54%) and lack of clinical practice guideline recommendations (48%). CONCLUSION: Clinical adoption of pretreatment DPYD testing is extremely limited in the United States. Utilization may be substantially increased by inclusion in the oncology clinical practice guideline recommendations, coverage through health insurance, and potentially education of medical oncologists regarding available treatment modification guidelines.
PURPOSE: Patients who carry reduced-activity DPYD polymorphisms have increased fluoropyrimidine (FP) toxicity risk. Although pretreatment DPYD testing is recommended throughout most of Europe, it is not recommended in the United States, and adoption has been limited. The objective of this survey was to describe the current practice in the United States regarding pretreatment DPYD testing and understand the factors deterring oncologists from ordering testing. METHODS: Survey invitations were e-mailed to 325 medical oncologists practicing in the United States who are members of the SWOG Cancer Research Network Gastrointestinal Cancer, Breast Cancer, or Early Therapeutics Committees. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey responses. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 59 (18.2%) US medical oncologists, of whom 98% strongly or somewhat agree that patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency have increased toxicity risk and 96% would modify FP dosing for a patient with known DPD deficiency. However, only 32% strongly or somewhat agree that pretreatment DPYD testing is useful to inform FP treatment, 20% have ever ordered pretreatment testing, and 3% order testing for at least 10% of their FP-treated patients. The most important factors that deter oncologists from ordering testing were low prevalence of DPD deficiency (54%) and lack of clinical practice guideline recommendations (48%). CONCLUSION: Clinical adoption of pretreatment DPYD testing is extremely limited in the United States. Utilization may be substantially increased by inclusion in the oncology clinical practice guideline recommendations, coverage through health insurance, and potentially education of medical oncologists regarding available treatment modification guidelines.
Authors: E J Stanek; C L Sanders; K A Johansen Taber; M Khalid; A Patel; R R Verbrugge; B C Agatep; R E Aubert; R S Epstein; F W Frueh Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Adam M Lee; Qian Shi; Emily Pavey; Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent; Frank A Sinicrope; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Richard M Goldberg; Robert B Diasio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lori Kay Mattison; Jeanne Fourie; Renee A Desmond; Anil Modak; Muhammad Wasif Saif; Robert B Diasio Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Allison M Deal; Jai Patel; Janell Markey; Marcia Van Riper; Howard L McLeod Journal: Per Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Linda M Henricks; Lisanne N van Merendonk; Didier Meulendijks; Maarten J Deenen; Jos H Beijnen; Anthonius de Boer; Annemieke Cats; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Maarten J Deenen; Didier Meulendijks; Annemieke Cats; Marjolein K Sechterberger; Johan L Severens; Henk Boot; Paul H Smits; Hilde Rosing; Caroline M P W Mandigers; Marcel Soesan; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bhavina B Sharma; Karan Rai; Heather Blunt; Wenyan Zhao; Tor D Tosteson; Gabriel A Brooks Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Carin A T C Lunenburg; Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Jesse J Swen; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Marga Nijenhuis; Mandy H Crommentuijn-van Rhenen; Nienke J de Boer-Veger; Anne Marie Buunk; Elisa J F Houwink; Hans Mulder; Gerard A Rongen; Ron H N van Schaik; Jan van der Weide; Bob Wilffert; Vera H M Deneer Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: P García-Alfonso; M Saiz-Rodríguez; R Mondéjar; J Salazar; D Páez; A M Borobia; M J Safont; I García-García; R Colomer; X García-González; M J Herrero; L A López-Fernández; F Abad-Santos Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 3.405