ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Dermatological Adverse Events Associated With Lapatinib Treatment in Dogs With Urothelial Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLapatinib is widely used in human oncology; however, dermatological adverse events (DAEs) are common and have been correlated with treatment efficacy. In veterinary medicine, lapatinib use in combination with piroxicam has been shown to be effective in treating canine urothelial carcinoma (UC); however, the incidence and prognostic significance of DAEs in dogs remain unknown.
objectiveTo evaluate the DAEs in dogs with UC treated with lapatinib and piroxicam. ANIMALS: Eighty-five dogs with UC were treated with lapatinib/piroxicam and 42 were treated with piroxicam alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated dogs diagnosed with UC and treated with lapatinib and piroxicam, and those treated with piroxicam alone. Relevant data were extracted from the medical records. The DAEs were assessed using the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Naranjo algorithm. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used to assess progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsDAEs occurred in 31.8% of the dogs in the lapatinib/piroxicam group, with alopecia and hyperpigmentation being the most common. In the piroxicam group, DAEs were observed in 7.1% of dogs. The relative risk of developing DAEs in the lapatinib/piroxicam group was 4.4 (p < 0.01). In the lapatinib/piroxicam group, DAEs were associated with a longer PFS (p < 0.03). The Cox proportional hazards model identified DAEs as independent prognostic factors for improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lapatinib treatment in dogs induces DAEs, which serve as biomarkers of lapatinib efficacy in canine UC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.