Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35397172›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Phenotyping Using Pretreatment Uracil: A Note of Caution Based on a Large Prospective Clinical Study.

Mirjam de With, Jonathan Knikman, Femke M de Man, Carin A T C Lunenburg, Linda M Henricks, André B P van Kuilenburg, Jan G Maring, Maurice C van Staveren, Niels de Vries, Hilde Rosing and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Strategies for DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in the US.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.

Mirjam de WithDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jonathan KnikmanDivision of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke M de ManDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carin A T C LunenburgDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Linda M HenricksDivision of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
André B P van KuilenburgLaboratory Genetic Metabolic Diseases, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan G MaringDepartment of Pharmacy, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Maurice C van StaverenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Treant Healthgroup, Scheper Hospital, Emmen, The Netherlands.
Niels de VriesDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hilde RosingDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jos H BeijnenDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dick PluimDivision of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anil ModakCambridge Isotope Laboratories, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, USA.
Alex L T ImholzDepartment of Internal Medicine, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Ron H N van SchaikDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan H M SchellensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Annemieke CatsDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk-Jan GuchelaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ron H J MathijssenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jesse J SwenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Didier MeulendijksDivision of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLOncode Institute · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLInternational Isotopes (United States) · USIsala · NLTreant Zorggroep · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical practice, 25-30% of the patients treated with fluoropyrimidines experience severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Extensively clinically validated DPYD genotyping tests are available to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity due to decreased activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate limiting enzyme in fluoropyrimidine metabolism. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended that, as an alternative for DPYD genotype-based testing for DPD deficiency, also phenotype testing based on pretreatment plasma uracil levels is a suitable method to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Although the evidence for genotype-directed dosing of fluoropyrimidines is substantial, the level of evidence supporting plasma uracil levels to predict DPD activity in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding this, uracil-based phenotyping is now used in clinical practice in various countries in Europe. We aimed to determine the value of pretreatment uracil levels in predicting DPD deficiency and severe treatment-related toxicity. To this end, we determined pretreatment uracil levels in 955 patients with cancer, and assessed the correlation with DPD activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. We identified substantial issues concerning the use of pretreatment uracil in clinical practice, including large between-center study differences in measured pretreatment uracil levels, most likely as a result of pre-analytical factors. Importantly, we were not able to correlate pretreatment uracil levels with DPD activity nor were uracil levels predictive of severe treatment-related toxicity. We urge that robust clinical validation should first be performed before pretreatment plasma uracil levels are used in clinical practice as part of a dosing strategy for fluoropyrimidines.

Indexed as

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase DeficiencyDihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)UracilAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticHumansLeukocytes, MononuclearProspective StudiesAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticDihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)Uracil

Identifiers

PMID35397172
PMCPMC9322339
OpenAlexW4223566428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.