4.6 Review

Venous thromboembolic events with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 1, Pages 80-89

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.12.006

Keywords

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor; Tyrosine kinase inhibitors; Approved; Venous thromboembolic events; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Trust Family Research Fund for Kidney Cancer
  2. Novartis
  3. Pfizer
  4. Speaker or Advisory board for Pfizer
  5. GSK
  6. Celgene
  7. Dendreon
  8. Viatar
  9. Advisory board for Bayer/Onyx Pharmaceuticals
  10. Abbot
  11. Genentech
  12. Aveo
  13. Agennix
  14. GlaxoSmithKline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A trial-level meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative risk (RR) of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) associated with approved vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TIC]). Eligible studies included randomized phase 2 and 3 trials comparing arms with and without a Food and Drug Administration-approved VEGFR TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, vandetanib, and axitinib). Statistical analyses calculated the RR and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity. A total of 7441 patients from 9 phase III trials and 8 phase II trials were selected. The RR of all grade and high-grade VTEs for the TKI vs. no TKI arms was 1.10 (95% CI 0.73-1.66, p = 0.64) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.58-1.25, p = 0.41), respectively. No difference in risk was found based on tumor type, age and trial design. The majority of trials exhibited high quality per Jadad scoring and no heterogeneity or publication bias was found. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland 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