Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Pharmaceuticals · September 30, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background/Objectives: toxicity related to treatment with the anti-cancer drugs fluoropyrimidines (FP) is mainly driven by a deficiency in the dihydropyrimidine-dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity. Standardized pharmacogenomic markers in the DPYD gene allow pre-emptive prediction and therapy adjustment in patients testing positive, but the rarity of these markers lowers screening sensitivity, leaving a significant part of at-risk individuals undetected. This study aimed to explore the diagnostic performance of genetic screening tests modelled to include unclassified rare DPYD variants and the common SNPs rs1801160 and rs2297595. Methods: this is a retrospective genotype-phenotype association study including 687 Italian subjects who underwent DPD-phenotyping by the 5-fluorouracil degradation assay (5-FUDR) and DPYD genotyping by full exon sequencing. According to their DPD-phenotype, subjects were grouped into a DPD deficiency group (DD, N = 94; >30% reduction in 5-FUDR) and a normal DPD activity group (NDA, N = 593). The phenotype was used as the reference standard to assess genotype-based functional prediction, and discordant genotype-phenotype cases were scored as false negatives or false positives. The phenotype (DD or NDA) prediction power of a genetic, binary (presence/absence) screening test including standardized pharmacogenomic markers (Test 1) was compared to binary tests including missense, nonsense, frameshift or splice-site rare variants (Test 2) or the co-occurrence of rs1801160 and rs2297595 (Test 3). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, correcting for multiple testing when appropriate. Results: positivity for all binary tests was significantly associated with the DPD deficiency phenotype (Test1: OR = 6; Test 2: OR = 4.85; Test3: OR = 4.9). Notably, overlap among subjects testing positive in the different tests was minimal. Combining all tests, a 3-fold increase in screening sensitivity was achieved compared to the reference Test 1 (from 12.77% to 35.11%), with a slight decrease in specificity from 97.64% to 91.74%. Conclusions: the proposed approach can refine the genetic predictivity of the DPD-deficiency phenotype in pre-emptive screening, capturing a significantly larger pool of biochemically at-risk patients.