4.6 Review

Plethora of agents, plethora of targets, plethora of side effects in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Journal

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 416-424

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.01.003

Keywords

VEGF; Anti-angiogenic drugs; Mechanism of action; Side effects; Renal cell carcinoma

Categories

Funding

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The plethora of novel agents recently approved for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed the therapeutic landscape in this disease. The plethora of targets some of these agents inhibit can result in a wide range of side effects. While these novel therapies can be viewed as inhibitors of angiogenesis that directly or indirectly target the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, their individual mechanisms of action (MoA) are key to defining their side-effect profiles. Direct VEGF inhibition with the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, is primarily associated with side effects related to the precise inhibition of VEGF, such as proteinuria, hypertension and minor bleeding events. In contrast, non-VEGF-related side effects are observed with agents inhibiting multiple receptor tyrosine kinases (sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib and pazopanib) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (temsirolimus and everolimus): these include diarrhoea, skin rash, stomatitis, hand-foot skin reaction, hypothyroidism, and haematological and metabolic abnormalities. This review discusses the MoA of these novel therapies and how a greater understanding of MoA may help to predict the range and type of side effects, develop combinations of agents with acceptable tolerability, enable a more rational approach to patient selection, and allow the development of effective side-effect management strategies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available