4.6 Review

Risks of Proteinuria Associated with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090135

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) have emerged as an effective targeted therapy in the treatment of cancer patients, the overall incidence and risk of proteinuria associated these drugs is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials to quantify the incidence and risk of proteinuria associated with VEGFR-TKIs. Methodology: Databases from PubMed, Web of Science and abstracts presented at ASCO meeting up to May 31, 2013 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective phase II and III trials evaluating VEGFR-TKIs in cancer patients with adequate data on proteinuria. 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. Principal Findings: A total of 6,882 patients with a variety of solid tumors from 33 clinical trials were included in our analysis. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade (grade 3 or higher) proteinuria was 18.7% (95% CI, 13.3%-25.6%) and 2.4% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.7%), respectively. Patients treated with VEGFR-TKIs had a significantly increased risk of all-grade (OR 2.92, 95%CI: 1.09-7.82, p = 0.033) and high-grade proteinuria (OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.01-3.84, p = 0.046) when compared to patients treated with control medication. No evidence of publication bias was observed. Conclusions: The use of VEGFR-TKIs is associated with a significant increased risk of developing proteinuria. Physicians should be aware of this adverse effect and should monitor cancer patients receiving VEGFR-TKIs.

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