Observational studyCancer medicine2026
The Impact of Upfront DihydroPyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPD) Testing on the Therapeutic Management of Patients Scheduled for 5-FU.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is catabolized by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). DPD deficiency can trigger life-threatening toxicities, and pretesting DPD is increasingly recommended. Here, we investigated the impact of upfront DPD testing on treatment strategy, that is, whether DPD status influences physicians' choice to use 5-FU or not, and if so, whether to maintain standard dosage or reduce it.
methodsThis is a non-interventional, observational study of 525 adult patients likely to be treated with 5-FU. Upfront DPD status was determined by measuring plasma uracil. Multivariate logistic regression was then used to investigate the factors influencing treatment strategies. A further analysis was then performed on a subset of 419 fit patients eligible for 5-FU. Finally, we studied the impact of adaptive dosing on clinical outcomes (efficacy and toxicity) in the 374 patients who received 5-FU eventually.
resultsDPD testing identified 392 extensive (EM; 74.7%), 78 poor (PM; 14.8%), and 55 ultra-rapid metabolizers (UM; 10.5%). Multivariate analyses identified performance status (p = 0.001), DPD status (p = 0.006), age (p = 0.004), metastatic stage (p = 0.04) and history of prior 5-FU treatment (p = 0.002) as factors influencing treatment strategy. PM were more likely to be treated without 5-FU (22%) than EM (3%) or UM (10%) patients (p = 0.002). Similarly, of those treated with 5-FU, 100% of PM had a dose reduction, compared to 9% and 25% of EM and UM patients, respectively (p < 0.001). No difference in efficacy (response rate: 51.6%, progression-free survival: 14.7 months) and safety (severe toxicities: 4.3%) was found, regardless of the DPD status and subsequent dose adaptation, but reduced survival was observed in patients for whom 5-FU was excluded.
conclusionUpfront DPD testing has a strong impact on treatment strategies, and subsequent adaptive dosing limits the risk for severe toxicities without compromising efficacy in real-world patients.
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.