4.6 Article

All anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs can induce 'pre-eclampsia-like syndrome': a RARe study

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 325-332

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gft465

关键词

anti-VEGF; drug side effects; kidney biopsy; pre-eclampsia

资金

  1. Region Bretagne, Universite Rennes 1 (CoREC/Cs scientifique)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Specific therapies that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors have improved the survival of patients with metastatic cancers, but can induce side effects. Renal side effects (proteinuria, hypertension and renal failure) are underestimated. Methods. The French RARe (Reins sous traitement Anti-VEGF Registre) study collects data on patients with cancer who had a renal biopsy because of major renal side effects during treatment with anti-VEGF drugs. Results. We collected 22 renal biopsies performed 16.2 +/- 10.6 months after the beginning of treatment; of which 21 had hypertension, mean proteinuria was 2.97 +/- 2.00 g/day and mean serum creatinine, 134 +/- 117 mu mol/L. Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) was observed in 21 biopsy specimens, sometimes associated with acute tubular necrosis (ATN; n = 4). TMA histological lesions were more important than the biological signs of TMA could suggest. Patients with ATN of >20% had higher serum creatinine levels than those with only TMA (231 versus 95 mu mol/L). Nephrin, podocin and synaptopodin were variably down-regulated in all renal biopsies. VEGF was down-regulated in all glomeruli. Conclusion. This study underlines the importance of regular clinical and biological cardiovascular and renal checking during all anti-VEGF therapies for cancer for early detection of renal dysfunction. Collaboration between oncologists and nephrologists is essential. In such cases, renal biopsy might help in appreciating the severity of the renal lesions and after multidisciplinary discussion whether or not it is safe to continue the treatment.

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