ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics
DPYD Genotyping in Patients Receiving Capecitabine: An exploratory analysis from the D-TORCH study
Provisionally accepted- 1All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
- 2Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India
- 3Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Fluoropyrimidines, such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine, are widely used chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of gastrointestinal, head and neck, and breast cancers.(1–5) These drugs are known to cause early-onset severe or life-threatening toxicities, including myelosuppression, mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and diarrhea, in about 10 to 30% of patients, with reported mortality rates ranging from 0.5% to 1%]. (6–13) The enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), which is coded by DPYD gene, is the rate-limiting enzyme involved in the 5-FU metabolism (14). Partial or complete deficiency of DPD activity is associated with life-threatening side effects among patients undergoing 5–FU– based treatment (15,16). More than 450 DPYD polymorphisms have been associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity, and incidence of DPD deficiency has been estimated at 3%–7% in the Caucasian population (15–17). Routine testing for four DPYD variants that are commonly found—DPYD2A (c.1905+1G>A), DPYD13 (c.1679T>G), c.2846A>T, and c.1129-5923C>G/hapB3 is recommended by the European Medicines Agency before the initiation of 5-FU chemotherapy (16). These mutations play a role in the interindividual variability of 5-FU toxicity. The current guidelines of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) include 82 known DPYD variants, of which 21 are classified as poor metabolizers (no DPYD enzyme function), six as intermediate metabolizers (reduced function), and the rest as normal metabolizers or with limited evidence (17). The CPIC guidelines suggest avoiding 5-FU in poor metabolizers and a 25%–50 % dose reduction in intermediate metabolizers. (16,17) While fluoropyrimidine toxicity profiles are comparable between populations, the prevalence and distribution of DPYD variants differ. (18) Certain variants which are common in Europeans have not been reported in the African, Chinese, or Japanese populations, whilst other clinically relevant variants may be unique to non-Caucasians. Routine DPYD genotyping is not commonly practiced in India, and information on DPYD polymorphisms in the Indian population is scarce. Previously published data from India utilized PCR or Sanger sequencing to examine known polymorphisms in most cases, including healthy volunteers or patients with grade 3 toxicities (19,20). To address these gaps, we conducted a single-center study using next-generation sequencing to evaluate the prevalence of DPYD variants in capecitabine-treated patients and their associated toxicity profiles.
Keywords: Cancer genomics, capecitabine toxicity, DPYD gene polymorphism, D-TORCH trial, Pharmacogenomics (PGx), Pharmacogentics
Received: 25 Oct 2025; Accepted: 19 Jan 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Baskarane, Divakar, Santhosh, Pallavi, Hooda, Yenamandra, Kumar, Shetty, Banotra, Gupta, Minocha, TANWAR, Sharma, Vasudeva, Kumar, R., BAKHSHI and Batra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Atul Batra
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
