Top

Published in:

01-03-2010 | Original Article

Contribution of dihydropyrimidinase gene alterations to the development of serious toxicity in fluoropyrimidine-treated cancer patients

Authors: Julie Fidlerova, Petra Kleiblova, Matej Bilek, Stanislav Kormunda, Zuzana Formankova, Jan Novotny, Zdenek Kleibl

Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Issue 4/2010

Abstract

Purpose

Decreased 5-fluorouracil catabolism has been considered a major factor contributing to fluoropyrimidine (FP)-related toxicity. Alterations in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene coding for the first and rate-limiting enzyme of FP catabolic pathway could explain toxicity in only a limited proportion of FP-treated patients. The importance of gene variants in dihydropyrimidinase (DPYS) coding for subsequent catabolic enzyme of FP degradation is not fully understood.

Methods

We performed genotyping of DPYS based on denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography in 113 cancer patients including 67 with severe FP-related toxicity and 46 without toxicity excellently tolerating FPs treatment.

Results

We detected nine DPYS variants including four located in non-coding sequence (c.-1T>C, IVS1+34C>G, IVS1-58T>C, and novel IVS4+11G>T), four silent (c.15G>A, c.216C>T, and novel c.105C>T and c.324C>A), and one novel missense variant c.1441C>T (p.R481W). All novel alterations were detected once only in patients without toxicity. The c.-1T>C and IVS1-58T>C variants were found to modify the risk of toxicity. The CC carriers of the c.-1C alleles were at higher risk of mucositis (OR = 4.13; 95% CI = 1.51–11.31; P = 0.006) and gastrointestinal toxicity (OR = 3.54; 95% CI = 1.59–7.88; P = 0.002), whereas the presence of the IVS1-58C allele decreased the risk of gastrointestinal toxicity (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.17–0.93; P = 0.03) and leucopenia (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.08–1.01; P = 0.05).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that missense and nonsense variants in DPYS are infrequent, however, the development of serious primarily gastrointestinal toxicity could be influenced by non-coding DPYS sequence variants c.-1T>C and IVS1-58T>C.

The IVS2-62G > T variant (with MAF = 0.42 and 0.25 for overall and Caucasian subpopulation, respectively in Thomas et al. study) was not detected in our population being localized outside DNA sequence amplified in amplicon covering exon 3 and flanking intronic sequences in our analysis.

van Kuilenburg AB (2004) Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and the efficacy and toxicity of 5-fluorouracil. Eur J Cancer 40:939–950CrossRefPubMed

Saltz LB, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D et al (2007) Irinotecan fluorouracil plus leucovorin is not superior to fluorouracil plus leucovorin alone as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer: results of CALGB 89803. J Clin Oncol 25:3456–3461CrossRefPubMed

Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP et al (2005) Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2696–2704CrossRefPubMed

Rothenberg ML, Meropol NJ, Poplin EA et al (2001) Mortality associated with irinotecan plus bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin: summary findings of an independent panel. J Clin Oncol 19:3801–3807PubMed

Heggie GD, Sommadossi JP, Cross DS et al (1987) Clinical pharmacokinetics of 5-fluorouracil and its metabolites in plasma, urine, and bile. Cancer Res 47:2203–2206PubMed

van Kuilenburg AB, Dobritzsch D, Meinsma R et al (2002) Novel disease-causing mutations in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene interpreted by analysis of the three-dimensional protein structure. Biochem J 364:157–163PubMed

van Kuilenburg AB, Meinsma R, Beke E et al (2005) Identification of three novel mutations in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene associated with altered pre-mRNA splicing or protein function. Biol Chem 386:319–324CrossRefPubMed

van Kuilenburg AB, Muller EW, Haasjes J et al (2001) Lethal outcome of a patient with a complete dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency after administration of 5-fluorouracil: frequency of the common IVS14+1G>A mutation causing DPD deficiency. Clin Cancer Res 7:1149–1153PubMed

Schwab M, Zanger UM, Marx C et al (2008) Role of genetic and nongenetic factors for fluorouracil treatment-related severe toxicity: a prospective clinical trial by the German 5-FU toxicity study group. J Clin Oncol 26:2131–2138CrossRefPubMed

10.

Collie-Duguid ES, Etienne MC, Milano G et al (2000) Known variant DPYD alleles do not explain DPD deficiency in cancer patients. Pharmacogenetics 10:217–223CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ticha I, Kleiblova P, Fidlerova J et al (2009) Lack of large intragenic rearrangements in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) gene in fluoropyrimidine-treated patients with high-grade toxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 64:615–618CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mercier C, Ciccolini J (2006) Profiling dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency in patients with cancer undergoing 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine therapy. Clin Colorectal Cancer 6:288–296CrossRefPubMed

13.

Boisdron-Celle M, Remaud G, Traore S et al (2007) 5-Fluorouracil-related severe toxicity: a comparison of different methods for the pretherapeutic detection of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency. Cancer Lett 249:271–282CrossRefPubMed

14.

van Kuilenburg AB, Meinsma R, Zonnenberg BA et al (2003) Dihydropyrimidinase deficiency and severe 5-fluorouracil toxicity. Clin Cancer Res 9:4363–4367PubMed

15.

Thomas HR, Ezzeldin HH, Guarcello V et al (2007) Genetic regulation of dihydropyrimidinase and its possible implication in altered uracil catabolism. Pharmacogenet Genomics 17:973–987CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kleibl Z, Fidlerova J, Kleiblova P et al (2009) Influence of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) coding sequence variants on the development of fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity in patients with high-grade toxicity and patients with excellent tolerance of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Neoplasma 56:303–316CrossRefPubMed

17.

Novotny J, Kleibl Z, Sykora V et al (2003) Projekt “DPD online”: možnost predikce toxicity 5-fluorouracilu a jeho derivátů [Project “DPD online”: the possibility of toxicity prediction of 5-fluorouracil and its derivates]. Klin Onkol 16:276–278

18.

Ding K, Zhou K, He F et al (2008) LDA: a java-based linkage disequilibrium analyzer. Bioinformatics 19:2147–2148CrossRef

19.

Diasio RB, Schuetz JD, Wallace HJ, Sommadossi JP (1985) Dihydrofluorouracil: a fluorouracil catabolite with antitumor activity in murine and human cells. Cancer Res 45:4900–4903PubMed

20.

Hamajima N, Matsuda K, Sakata S et al (1996) A novel gene family defined by human dihydropyrimidinase and three related proteins with differential tissue distribution. Gene 180:157–163CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hamajima N, Kouwaki M, Vreken P et al (1998) Dihydropyrimidinase deficiency: structural organization, chromosomal localization, and mutation analysis of the human dihydropyrimidinase gene. Am J Hum Genet 63:717–726CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lohkamp B, Andersen B, Piskur J et al (2006) The crystal structures of dihydropyrimidinases reaffirm the close relationship between cyclic amidohydrolases and explain their substrate specificity. J Biol Chem 281:13762–13776CrossRefPubMed

23.

Naguib FN, el Kouni MH, Cha S (1985) Enzymes of uracil catabolism in normal and neoplastic human tissues. Cancer Res 45:5405–5412PubMed

24.

van Kuilenburg AB, Van Lenthe H, van Gennip AH (2006) Activity of pyrimidine degradation enzymes in normal tissues. Nucleosides Nucleotides Nucleic Acids 25:1211–1214CrossRefPubMed

25.

Sumi S, Imaeda M, Kidouchi K et al (1998) Population and family studies of dihydropyrimidinuria: prevalence, inheritance mode, and risk of fluorouracil toxicity. Am J Med Genet 78:336–340CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hayashi K, Kidouchi K, Sumi S et al (1996) Possible prediction of adverse reactions to pyrimidine chemotherapy from urinary pyrimidine levels and a case of asymptomatic adult dihydropyrimidinuria. Clin Cancer Res 2:1937–1941PubMed

27.

Gross E, Busse B, Riemenschneider M et al (2008) Strong association of a common dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene polymorphism with fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity in cancer patients. PLoS ONE 3:e4003CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kozak M (2002) Pushing the limits of the scanning mechanism for initiation of translation. Gene 299:1–34CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gonzalez-Conejero R, Corral J, Roldan V et al (2002) A common polymorphism in the annexin V Kozak sequence (−1C>T) increases translation efficiency and plasma levels of annexin V, and decreases the risk of myocardial infarction in young patients. Blood 100:2081–2086PubMed

30.

Kenis H, Doggen CJ, Vos HL et al (2003) The C-1T mutation in the annexin A5 Kozak sequence slightly increases the risk of myocardial infarction in men. J Thromb Haemost 1:2688–2689CrossRefPubMed

31.

Park JH, Chang HS, Park CS et al (2007) Association analysis of CD40 polymorphisms with asthma and the level of serum total IgE. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175:775–782CrossRefPubMed

32.

Marzolini C, Tirona RG, Gervasini G et al (2007) A common polymorphism in the bile acid receptor farnesoid X receptor is associated with decreased hepatic target gene expression. Mol Endocrinol 21:1769–1780CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kozak M (2002) Not every polymorphism close to the AUG codon can be explained by invoking context effects on initiation of translation. Blood 101:1202–1203CrossRef

34.

Smith PJ, Zhang C, Wang J et al (2006) An increased specificity score matrix for the prediction of SF2/ASF-specific exonic splicing enhancers. Hum Mol Genet 15:2490–2508CrossRefPubMed

Title: Contribution of dihydropyrimidinase gene alterations to the development of serious toxicity in fluoropyrimidine-treated cancer patients
Authors: Julie Fidlerova
Petra Kleiblova
Matej Bilek
Stanislav Kormunda
Zuzana Formankova
Jan Novotny
Zdenek Kleibl
Publication date: 01-03-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0344-5704
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0843
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-009-1071-0

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Amongst eligible patients, age and comorbidity do not predict for dose-limiting toxicity from phase I chemotherapy

Phase II study of oral vinorelbine in combination with capecitabine as second line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes

Evaluation of the exposure equivalence of oral versus intravenous temozolomide

Serum concentrations of pegylated interferon α-2b in patients with resected stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pegylated interferon α-2b in a randomized phase III trial (EORTC 18991)

Tumor-selective cytotoxicity of benzo[c]phenanthridine derivatives from Toddalia asiatica Lam.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of RAD001 (everolimus) in normal and tumor-bearing rodents

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer