Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24135988›Full record

Observational studyClinical pharmacokinetics2014

Exposure-toxicity relationship of sorafenib in Japanese patients with renal cell carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Masahide Fukudo, Takuma Ito, Tomoyuki Mizuno, Keiko Shinsako, Etsuro Hatano, Shinji Uemoto, Tomomi Kamba, Toshinari Yamasaki, Osamu Ogawa, Hiroshi Seno and 2 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Therapeutic drug monitoring of oral targeted antineoplastic drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Masahide FukudoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Kyoto University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan, mfukudo@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Takuma Ito
Tomoyuki Mizuno
Keiko Shinsako
Etsuro Hatano
Shinji Uemoto
Tomomi Kamba
Toshinari Yamasaki
Osamu Ogawa
Hiroshi Seno
Tsutomu Chiba
Kazuo Matsubara
Kyoto University · JPKyoto University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesSorafenib has various adverse events that can cause treatment discontinuation or dose reduction. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving sorafenib under real-life practice conditions. Furthermore, we investigated the relationship between sorafenib exposure and clinical outcomes.

methodsA total of 91 Japanese cancer patients (RCC, n = 21; HCC, n = 70) treated with sorafenib were enrolled. Toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 4.0. Single blood samples were collected at each clinic visit and serum sorafenib concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The incidence of adverse events was analyzed according to cancer type and sorafenib concentration.

resultsHand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) was the most common adverse event among RCC (76 %) and HCC (66 %) patients. Elevations in hepatic transaminases and pancreatic amylase developed more frequently in patients with RCC than in those with HCC (p < 0.05), while hyperbilirubinemia and thrombocytopenia were observed more often in HCC patients than in RCC patients (p < 0.05). Pharmacokinetic data were available from 52 patients (RCC, n = 16; HCC, n = 36). HCC patients showed significantly higher dose-normalized concentrations than RCC patients (p = 0.0184). Sorafenib concentrations were significantly greater in patients with grade ≥2 HFSR and hypertension than in those not experiencing the adverse events (p = 0.0045 and 0.0453, respectively). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curves revealed optimal cutoff concentrations of sorafenib to predict grade ≥2 HFSR (5.78 μg/mL) and hypertension (4.78 μg/mL). In addition, a trend of prolonged overall survival was observed in HCC patients who achieved a maximal sorafenib concentration of ≥4.78 μg/mL during treatment compared with those who did not achieve the threshold concentration (12.0 vs. 6.5 months; log-rank p = 0.0824).

conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of sorafenib differ between Japanese cancer patients with RCC and HCC. Furthermore, the serum sorafenib concentration could be used as a guide to avoiding the development of severe HFSR while allowing prediction of the incidence of grade ≥2 hypertension in patients with RCC and HCC, and may potentially be related to the clinical efficacy of sorafenib for HCC.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsAsian PeopleCarcinoma, HepatocellularCarcinoma, Renal CellExanthemaFemaleHand-Foot SyndromeHumansHypertensionKidney NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedAntineoplastic AgentsNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID24135988
OpenAlexW2150615783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.