4.6 Review

Vascular Complications of Cancer Chemotherapy

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 852-862

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2015.12.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation (BHF) [RG/13/7/30099]
  2. BHF Chair [CH/12/4/29762]
  3. BHF Award of Research Excellence
  4. British Heart Foundation [RG/13/7/30099] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Chief Scientist Office [TCS/16/31] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of new anticancer drugs has resulted in improved mortality rates and 5-year survival rates in patients with cancer. However, many of the modern chemotherapies are associated with cardiovascular toxicities that increase cardiovascular risk in cancer patients, including hypertension, thrombosis, heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmias. These limitations restrict treatment options and might negatively affect the management of cancer. The cardiotoxic effects of older chemotherapeutic drugs such as alkylating agents, antimetabolites, and anticancer antibiotics have been known for a while. The newer agents, such as the antiangiogenic drugs that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor signalling are also associated with cardiovascular pathology, especially hypertension, thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and proteinuria. Exact mechanisms by which vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors cause these complications are unclear but impaired endothelial function, vascular and renal damage, oxidative stress, and thrombosis might be important. With increasing use of modern chemotherapies and prolonged survival of cancer patients, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in this patient population will continue to increase. Accordingly, careful assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors in cancer patients by oncologists and cardiologists working together is essential for optimal care so that prolonged cancer survival is not at the expense of increased cardiovascular events.

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