Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Lunch and Poster Display session

42P - DPD testing from tumor RNAseq in breast cancer: A proof of concept analysis

Date

16 May 2024

Session

Lunch and Poster Display session

Presenters

Kristín Sigurjónsdóttir

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 9 (suppl_4): 1-34. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop103010

Authors

K. Sigurjónsdóttir1, H. Saini1, J. Vallon-Christersson2, N. Nordborg1, Å. Borg1, S. Gladchuk1, A. Bosch3, L. Saal1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Lund University, Lund/SE
  • 2 Lund University, 22220 - Lund/SE
  • 3 Lund University - Faculty of Medicine, Malmo/SE

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 42P

Background

DPD (dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, encoded by DPYD) is the rate-limiting enzyme for fluoropyrimidine catabolism and a key enzyme for the metabolism of chemotherapy drugs such as fluorouracil and capecitabin. Testing for certain DPYD variants is recommended by international clinical guidelines to predict toxicity in patients and adjust treatment accordingly. A consensus has been reached to screen for four DPYD variants, namely c.1905+1G>A, c.1679T>G, c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A. Considering all four variants combined, around 7% of Europeans carry at least one decreased-function DPYD variant. Testing for DPYD variants is done using germline DNA, however, considering the high frequency in which capecitabine is used in breast cancer treatment and the high number of primary tumors for which RNAseq is performed for diagnostic purposes, we hypothesised that DPYD status could be read from tumor RNAseq and evaluated sensitivity and specificity compared to blood-DNA genotyping.

Methods

We studied a SCAN-B cohort of over 6000 breast tumors with RNAseq data, for which over 1700 patients also had available OncoArray germline genotyping. Since c.1905+1G>A is located in an intronic splice-site, an RNAseq model was developed to infer this SNP using exon-skipping events and ratios of supporting reads.

Results

In preliminary results, there was no case with c.1679T>G variant in either RNAseq data or OncoArray. Variant c.2846A>T was not included in OncoArray but 20 cases were identified by RNAseq. For variant c.1236G>A, RNAseq data analysis showed 67 true positive (TP) cases, 1660 true negative (TN) cases, 1 false positive case (FP), and 5 false negative (FN) cases. For the variant call c.1905+1G>A, RNAseq data analysis showed 28 TP, 1692 TN, 0 FP and 7 FN cases. Overall, using an estimated DPYD SNP prevalence of 7%, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were both preliminarily >99%.

Conclusions

DPYD variant calling is feasible using RNAseq reads. If RNAseq from breast tumor tissue is available, it may be possible to accurately predict toxicity to 5-FU-containing regimes and thus forgo the need for further specific genomic assays, thus optimizing the diagnostic techniques.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Mrs. Berta Kamprad Foundation.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.