4.6 Review

Incidence and Risk of Cardiotoxicity Associated with Bortezomib in the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087671

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2012FFB02435]
  2. central university [2013QN191]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the incidence and risk of cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib in cancer patients. Methods: Databases from PubMed, Web of Science and abstracts presented at ASCO meeting up to July 31, 2013 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective phase II and III trials evaluating bortezomib in cancer patients with adequate data on cardiotoxicity. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies. Results: A total of 5718 patients with a variety of malignancies from 25 clinical trials were included in our analysis. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib was 3.8% (95% CI: 2.6-5.6%) and 2.3% (1.63.5%), with a mortality of 3.0% (1.4-6.5%). Patients treated with bortezomib did not significantly increase the risk of all-grade (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.82-1.62, p = 0.41) and high-grade (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.58-2.24, p = 0.72) cardiotoxicity compared with patients treated with control medication. Sub-group analysis showed that the incidence of cardiotoxicity varied with tumor types, treatment regimens and phases of trials. No evidence of publication bias was observed. Conclusions: The use of bortezomib does not significantly increase the risk of cardiotoxicity compared to control patients. Further studies are recommended to investigate this association and risk differences among different tumor types, treatment regimens and phases of trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据