MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prospective cohort study of the impact of hospital-wide dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (<i>DPYD)</i> genotype testing for fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy on adverse events and hospital costs.

2019· article· en· W2947885749 on OpenAlexaff
Theodore J. Wigle, Brandi L. Povitz, Wendy A. Teft, Robin M. Legan, John Lenehan, Markus Gulilat, Stephanie Nevison, Justin Kritzinger, Veera Punaganty, Denise Keller, Suhair AlShanteer, Robin J. Francis, Victoria Siebring, Sisira Sarma, Yun‐Hee Choi, Stephen Welch, Eric Winquist, Ute I. Schwarz, Richard B. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoLawson Health Research InstituteCancer Care OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDPYDMedicineCapecitabineDihydropyrimidine dehydrogenaseInternal medicineProspective cohort studyAdverse effectChemotherapyOncologyCohortCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsFluorouracilPharmacogeneticsGenotypeCancerColorectal cancerThymidylate synthase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3028 Background: Fluoropyrimidines remain integral components of modern chemotherapy for solid tumors, and their toxicities can be reduced by pretreatment DPYD genotyping. Our main objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a hospital-wide pretreatment DPYD testing service based on the CPIC 2013 guideline on fluoropyrimidines and DPYD. Methods: We enrolled participants prior to planned fluoropyrimidine treatment as well as those who had experienced adverse events (AEs) after initiation of therapy, from December 1, 2013 to November 30, 2018. The patients tested pretreatment were analyzed as a prospective cohort to assess AEs within 90 days of fluoropyrimidine initiation and associated hospital cost. The primary outcome was the rate of severe global fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity in the pretreatment cohort (grade≥3, CTCAE v.4.0.3). Results: Of 1362 patients genotyped for DPYD within the study period 1041 were enrolled pretreatment and included in the primary analysis. The median age was 65 years (19-90), 57% male, 51% 5-FU, and 49% capecitabine. Dose reductions were recommended for 21 DPYD variant carriers who were detected pretreatment. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between DPYD variant (29%) and wild type (18%) patients (Fisher’s exact test p = 0.25). Costs associated with ER visits and hospitalizations at our tertiary care centre were $1,268 (89-8,562) (Median (IQR)) and $2,961 (341-13,567) for DPYD variant (n = 4) and wild-type (n = 99) patients respectively. Post-AE genotyping (n = 70) found five DPYD variant patients; all experienced grade≥3 toxicity, costs were $15,825 (10,962-25,310), and one poor metabolizer died due to complications. Targeted next generation exome sequencing of DPYD wild-type patients who experienced severe AEs identified five potentially deleterious genetic variants in ABC efflux transporters. Conclusions: Pretreatment DPYD genotype guided dosing of fluorouracil and capecitabine is feasible and benefits patients, health care providers, and hospitals. Our data supports adoption of pretreatment DPYD genotyping as a standard of care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207