4.6 Review

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Central Diabetes Insipidus: Looking for the Needle in the Haystack or a Very Rare Side-Effect to Promptly Diagnose?

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.798517

关键词

immune checkpoint inhibitors; diabetes insipidus; hypophysitis; endocrinopathy; posterior pituitary

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint inhibitors may cause central diabetes insipidus, but there are inconsistencies and a lack of specific guidelines in its diagnosis and management. Endocrinological consultation can assist medical oncologists in treating this side effect, but they are still responsible for early diagnosis and drug management.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved the survival in patients affected by an increasing number of malignancies, but they may also trigger various autoimmune side-effects, including endocrinopathies. Very rarely, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been reported to cause central diabetes insipidus. However, with their expanding use, the likelihood that oncologists will face this endocrine adverse event is expected to increase. By reviewing the limited literature on central diabetes insipidus induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors, some inconsistencies emerge in the diagnosis and the management of patients presenting with this toxicity, together with difficulties related to classifying its severity. Until now, specific guidelines on the management of central diabetes insipidus induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors are lacking. In clinical practice, endocrinological consultation may relieve medical oncologists from difficulties in treating this side-effect; oncologists, however, remain responsible for its early diagnose and the management of the causative drugs. To this aim, some practical suggestions are advised for the multidisciplinary management of cancer patients presenting with central diabetes insipidus induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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