4.7 Review

Chemotherapy-Induced Molecular Changes in Skeletal Muscle

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11030905

关键词

cancer patients; chemotherapy; skeletal muscle; muscle wasting; molecular changes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemotherapy exacerbates skeletal-muscle wasting in cancer patients, but the molecular effects of chemotherapy on muscle have not been fully understood, making the development of new anti-wasting strategies difficult. Therefore, further investigation on molecular mechanisms and clinical studies are necessary.
Paraneoplastic conditions such as cancer cachexia are often exacerbated by chemotherapy, which affects the patient's quality of life as well as the response to therapy. The aim of this narrative review was to overview the body-composition-related changes and molecular effects of different chemotherapy agents used in cancer treatment on skeletal-muscle remodeling. A literature search was performed using the Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct databases and a total of 77 papers was retrieved. In general, the literature survey showed that the molecular changes induced by chemotherapy in skeletal muscle have been studied mainly in animal models and mostly in non-tumor-bearing rodents, whereas clinical studies have essentially assessed changes in body composition by computerized tomography. Data from preclinical studies showed that chemotherapy modulates several molecular pathways in skeletal muscle, including the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, autophagy, IGF-1/PI3K/Akt/mTOR, IL-6/JAK/STAT, and NF-kappa B pathway; however, the newest chemotherapy agents are underexplored. In conclusion, chemotherapy exacerbates skeletal-muscle wasting in cancer patients; however, the incomplete characterization of the chemotherapy-related molecular effects on skeletal muscle makes the development of new preventive anti-wasting strategies difficult. Therefore, further investigation on molecular mechanisms and clinical studies are necessary.

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

4.7
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