Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Pre-emptive DPYD Genotyping-Guided Fluoropyrimidine Treatment in Solid Tumours: A Real-World Cost-Utility Analysis (146308)

Valerie Sutanta 1 , Srinivas Teppala 2 , Stephen Clarke 3 , Christine Lu 2
  1. School of Medical Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Aims: Fluoropyrimidine (FP) treatment can cause severe treatment-related adverse events in patients with reduced dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity. Pre-treatment DPYD genotyping can identify patients who may benefit from dose reduction. Previous economic evaluations of DPYD testing-guided treatment were based on randomised controlled trial (RCT)-derived data and may not be applicable in routine clinical practice. This is the first study to evaluate the cost-utility of DPYD testing-guided pharmacogenomic (PGx) treatment of solid tumours using a real-world evidence (RWE)-data driven approach. 

Methods: A semi-Markov model informed by RWE compared DPYD testing-guided treatment with standard care without testing. Patients transitioned between three health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated over a 1-year time horizon. In Scenario 1, DPYD testing costs were applied to all FP-eligible patients, reflecting routine implementation of a pre-treatment testing strategy. In Scenario 2, testing costs were applied only to DPYD heterozygous patients, representing an alternative costing assumption commonly used in cost-based economic evaluations. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) assessed uncertainty. 

Results: In Scenario 1, DPYD testing-guided treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$212 and an incremental gain of 0.0014 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$154,360/QALY. This exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$75,000/QALY, with a 0.4% probability of cost-effectiveness. In Scenario 2, the incremental cost decreased to AU$40 with an incremental QALY gain of 0.001, yielding an ICER of AU$29,440/QALY and a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness. 

Conclusion: DPYD testing-guided FP treatment was unlikely to be cost-effective when evaluated as a population-wide testing strategy but appeared cost-effective under alternative cost-based testing assumptions commonly used in implementation-focused evaluations. These findings suggest that cost-effectiveness estimates are sensitive to testing pathway assumptions and highlight the value of real-world evidence in PGx economic evaluations to inform implementation decisions.