ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2019
Estimating the Effectiveness of DPYD Genotyping in Italian Individuals Suffering from Cancer Based on the Cost of Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Clinical Benefits and Utility of Pretherapeutic DPYD and UGT1A1 Testing in Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the PREPARE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Multinational cost-utility analysis of panel-based pharmacogenetics-guided treatment of patients enrolled in the U-PGx PREPARE study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing in Italy: a review of evidence and multidisciplinary consensus on key priorities for implementation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- From Bench to Bedside: Translational Approaches to Cardiotoxicity in Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, and Lymphoma Therapies.Cancers · 2025Review
- Implementation of pre-emptive testing of a pharmacogenomic panel in clinical practice: Where do we stand?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Metabolomics-based treatment for chronic diseases: results from a multidisciplinary clinical study.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Article
- Economic evaluation of pharmacogenomic-guided antiplatelet treatment in Spanish patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome participating in the U-PGx PREPARE study.Human genomics · 2023Article
- Ten-year experience with pharmacogenetic testing forFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Testing for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency to Individualize 5-Fluorouracil Therapy.Cancers · 2022Review
- Targeting nucleotide metabolism: a promising approach to enhance cancer immunotherapy.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Review
- Article
- Real-World Impact of a Pharmacogenomics-Enriched Comprehensive Medication Management Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- The Value of Pharmacogenetics to Reduce Drug-Related Toxicity in Cancer Patients.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Article
- Clinical Opportunities for Germline Pharmacogenetics and Management of Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers.JCO precision oncology · 2022Article
- PriME-PGx: La Princesa University Hospital Multidisciplinary Initiative for the Implementation of Pharmacogenetics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- On the application, reporting, and sharing of in silico simulations for genetic studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluoropyrimidines (FLs) have been widely used for more than 60 years against a range of solid tumors and still remains the cornerstone for the treatment of colorectal, gastric, and breast cancer. Here, we performed an economic analysis to estimate the cost of DPYD-guided toxicity management and the clinical benefit expressed as quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in a large group of 571 individuals of Italian origin suffering from cancer and treated with a fluoropyrimidines-based chemotherapy. Individuals suffering from cancer with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer, who received a fluoropyrimidines-based treatment, were retrospectively genotyped in the DPYD gene. Effectiveness was measured as survival of individuals from chemotherapy, while study data on safety and efficacy as well as on resource utilization associated with each adverse drug reaction were used to measure costs to treat these adverse drug reactions. A generalized linear regression model was used to estimate cost differences for both study groups. DPYD extensive metabolizers (528 individuals) had greater effectiveness and lesser cost, representing a cost-saving option over DPYD intermediate and poor metabolizers (43 individuals) with mean QALYs of 4.18 (95%CI: 3.16-5.55) versus 3.02 (95%CI: 1.94-4.25), respectively. Our economic analysis showed that there are some indications for differences in survival between the two groups (p > 0.05), while the cost of DPYD extensive metabolizers was significantly lower (p < 0.01) compared with those belonging to the group of intermediate/poor metabolizers. These findings suggest that DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidines treatment represent a cost-saving choice for individuals suffering from cancer in the Italian healthcare setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.