PFD report

Thelma Joyce · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Aug 2019•Oxfordshire

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Unavailability of approved tests for DPD deficiency
  2. Lack of national guidance for routine DPD deficiency testing before Capecitabine and 5FU chemotherapy
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Reach a decision by April 2020 on whether to routinely commission DPD deficiency testing and include it in the National Genomic Test Directory.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 March 2020.
  2. Action

    Review the evidence for DPD deficiency testing to inform a decision on routine NHS commissioning and inclusion in the National Genomic Test Directory.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 March 2020.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Evidence supporting the adequacy of DPD testing is not compelling, so national testing requirements remain under review.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unavailability of approved tests for DPD deficiency

Wider context from the report

“The MATTER OF CONCERN therefore is in relation to the possible need for updated guidance in respect of testing for DPD deficiency for patients due to embark on Capecitabine and 5FU chemotherapy. It is reassuring that OUH NHS Trust have a two-year pilot in place to test for DPD deficiency. As far as I understand it, there are as yet no national guidelines or approved tests in respect of DPD deficiency. If it is the case that new technology and developments mean there is now a reliable test, I enquire if there should be guidelines issued concerning the use of a routine test. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of national guidance for routine DPD deficiency testing before Capecitabine and 5FU chemotherapy

Wider context from the report

“The MATTER OF CONCERN therefore is in relation to the possible need for updated guidance in respect of testing for DPD deficiency for patients due to embark on Capecitabine and 5FU chemotherapy. It is reassuring that OUH NHS Trust have a two-year pilot in place to test for DPD deficiency. As far as I understand it, there are as yet no national guidelines or approved tests in respect of DPD deficiency. If it is the case that new technology and developments mean there is now a reliable test, I enquire if there should be guidelines issued concerning the use of a routine test. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Reach a decision by April 2020 on whether to routinely commission DPD deficiency testing and include it in the National Genomic Test Directory.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In England, the NHS Long Term Plan sets out the ambition and commitment to establish a genomics service providing access to cutting edge genomic technologies which will help to pave the way for wider advances, particularly in relation to personalised medicine. The introduction of an effective testing strategy for DPD deficiency, to better tailor treatment decisions to individual patients, is a clear example of this. To that end, I can confirm that work to review the evidence for DPD testing is underway within NHS England and NHS Improvement, with a view to reaching a decision about whether to routinely commission DPD testing and include the testing within the National Genomic Test Directory. A decision is expected to be made by April 2020 and, if approved, will be supported with a plan for implementation in order to achieve equitable access to testing across England.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the evidence for DPD deficiency testing to inform a decision on routine NHS commissioning and inclusion in the National Genomic Test Directory.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In England, the NHS Long Term Plan sets out the ambition and commitment to establish a genomics service providing access to cutting edge genomic technologies which will help to pave the way for wider advances, particularly in relation to personalised medicine. The introduction of an effective testing strategy for DPD deficiency, to better tailor treatment decisions to individual patients, is a clear example of this. To that end, I can confirm that work to review the evidence for DPD testing is underway within NHS England and NHS Improvement, with a view to reaching a decision about whether to routinely commission DPD testing and include the testing within the National Genomic Test Directory. A decision is expected to be made by April 2020 and, if approved, will be supported with a plan for implementation in order to achieve equitable access to testing across England.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Evidence supporting the adequacy of DPD testing is not compelling, so national testing requirements remain under review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the matter of concern raised, evidence as to the adequacy of DPD testing has hitherto been far from compelling, which is alluded to in your report. Underlining this, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in March 2019 began a review of the evidence for testing and use of these medicines under Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC. Ultimately, the review may result in changes to marketing authorisations of the relevant medicines which would be mandatory. While these medicines are unlicensed for use in gall bladder cancer, it would be normal practice for marketing authorisation requirements, such as for testing and patient monitoring, to also apply to off label uses and would be managed through Trust arrangements for off label medicines. The EMA review is not yet complete.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Ensure a supply of uridine triacetate within England for timely treatment of serious fluoropyrimidine toxicity.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 March 2020.
  2. 2

    Publish an urgent policy statement setting out NHS commissioning arrangements for uridine triacetate.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 March 2020.
  3. 3

    Publish the updated Test Directory and urgent policy statement online and notify Trusts in writing of the changes.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 March 2020.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Ensure a supply of uridine triacetate within England for timely treatment of serious fluoropyrimidine toxicity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Alongside this, steps have been taken to ensure a supply of a medicine called uridine triacetate within England. The medicine can sometimes reverse the complications of serious toxicity following exposure to fluoropyrimidines, when it is administered within 96 hours of exposure. The treatment is not currently licensed in the UK or Europe and has not, until recently, been readily available outside North America. An urgent policy statement, setting out NHS England and NHS Improvement’s commissioning arrangements for this medicine is expected to be published in March 2020.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Publish an urgent policy statement setting out NHS commissioning arrangements for uridine triacetate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Alongside this, steps have been taken to ensure a supply of a medicine called uridine triacetate within England. The medicine can sometimes reverse the complications of serious toxicity following exposure to fluoropyrimidines, when it is administered within 96 hours of exposure. The treatment is not currently licensed in the UK or Europe and has not, until recently, been readily available outside North America. An urgent policy statement, setting out NHS England and NHS Improvement’s commissioning arrangements for this medicine is expected to be published in March 2020.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Publish the updated Test Directory and urgent policy statement online and notify Trusts in writing of the changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In line with our normal practices, both the updated Test Directory and the urgent policy statement will be published on NHS England and NHS Improvement’s website and Trusts will receive written notification of changes.”

Source location

2019-0500-Response-from-NHS-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 March 2020

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026