Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35525917›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2022

Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study).

Michio Nakamura, Taro Funakoshi, Shigeki Kataoka, Takahiro Horimatsu, Yoshitaka Nishikawa, Takeshi Matsubara, Takuro Mizukami, Tomoyuki Goto, Kenji Tsuchihashi, Eishi Baba and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. 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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Michio NakamuraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sapporo City General Hospital, 1-1, Kita 11-jo Nishi 13-chome, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8648, Japan. michio.nakamura@icloud.com.
Taro FunakoshiDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoin-kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Shigeki KataokaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoin-kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Takahiro HorimatsuDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoin-kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yoshitaka NishikawaDepartment of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Takeshi MatsubaraDepartment of Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin-Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Takuro MizukamiDepartment of Clinical Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Tomoyuki GotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shiga General Hospital, 4-30, Moriyama-5-chome, Moriyama, 524-8524, Japan.
Kenji TsuchihashiDepartment of Hematology, Oncology & Cardiovascular Medicine, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Eishi BabaDepartment of Oncology and Social Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Takehiko TsumuraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, 5-30 Fudegasakicho, Tennoji-ku, Osaka, 543-8555, Japan.
Yoshiaki MiharaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka, 350-1298, Japan.
Tetsuya HamaguchiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka, 350-1298, Japan.
Motoko YanagitaDepartment of Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin-Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Manabu MutoDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoin-kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Kyoto University Hospital · JPKyoto University · JPSaitama Medical University · JPKyushu University · JPKyushu University Hospital · JPOsaka Red Cross Hospital · JPSapporo City General Hospital · JPShiga Medical Center · JPSt. Marianna University School of Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring proteinuria is important for the management of patients with cancer treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-VEGF receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors (VEGF/Ri). Here we investigated the difference between the urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and a qualitative value test (QV) on the decision making of treatment continuation and the usefulness of UPCR testing in patients with gastrointestinal cancer treated with anti-VEGF/Ri.

methodsFrom January 2017 to December 2018, a survey was conducted based on the medical records of patients with gastrointestinal cancer with a QV of ≥2+ during the use of anti-VEGF/Ri at seven Japanese institutions participating in the Onco-nephrology Consortium. The primary endpoint was the ratio of the worst UPCR < 2.0 (low UPCR) in cases with a QV2+ at the point of the first proteinuria onset. The secondary endpoints were a comparison of low UPCR and worst UPCR ≥2.0 (high UPCR), the concordance rate between UPCR and QV in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading, and the differences in the decision making for anti-VEGF/Ri continuation.

resultsAmong the 71 patients enrolled, the proportion of low UPCR in onset QV2+ (n = 53) was 66% (n = 35). In a comparison between low (n = 36) and high UPCR cases (n = 24), body weight (P = 0.036), onset QV status (P = 0.0134), and worst QV status (P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with UPCR levels. The concordance rate for CTCAE Grade 2 of both the QV and UPCR was 83%. Regarding the judgment of anti-VEGF/Ri continuation, treatment was continued in 42.4% of cases when the QV became 3+, whereas only 25% continued treatment when the UPCR value became high.

conclusionUrine dipstick test results may overestimate proteinuria, and the UPCR result tended to be more critical than the QV when deciding the treatment policy.

trial registrationThis study is a multiple institutional retrospectively registered observational trial. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (protocol ID UMIN000042545 ).

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsNeoplasmsProteinuriaVascular Endothelial Growth Factor ACreatinineDecision MakingFemaleHumansKidney Function TestsMaleAngiogenesis InhibitorsCreatinineVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapyGastrointestinal cancerProteinuriaUrine protein/creatinine ratio

Identifiers

PMID35525917
PMCPMC9080145
OpenAlexW4229013468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.