ReviewCureus2026
Gastrointestinal Toxicities of Targeted Cancer Therapies: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeted cancer therapies have transformed the management of solid and hematologic malignancies through pathway-specific disease control across diverse tumor types. Despite these advances, gastrointestinal toxicities remain among the most frequent and clinically consequential adverse effects associated with these agents, often leading to dose interruptions, treatment discontinuation, and reduced adherence. Diarrhea is the dose-limiting and most prevalent gastrointestinal adverse event among various classes of targeted therapies, and nausea, vomiting, oral mucositis, and less frequent high-impact events cause varying degrees of patient-related morbidity. To address practical outpatient decision-making gaps, this narrative review synthesizes peer-reviewed literature identified primarily through PubMed/MEDLINE and supplemented by manual screening of reference lists from key guidelines, clinical trials, and expert reviews. This review proposes a pharmacology-informed Mechanism-Exposure-Severity-Escalation (MESE) framework to organize gastrointestinal toxicity assessment and management by linking drug class mechanisms and exposure-modifying factors to severity-based intervention and escalation thresholds. Evidence was based on clinical practice guidelines, pivotal randomized trials, supportive care intervention studies, quality of evidence on pharmacokinetic and drug-drug interaction studies, and on observational safety reports with a focus on pharmacist-relevant decisions in routine practice. Across the literature, targeted therapy-associated diarrhea emerged as a mechanistically heterogeneous toxicity with substantial variability in incidence, severity, and management requirements across drug classes. Evidence supports early, structured antidiarrheal intervention, selected prophylactic strategies for predictable high-risk agents, and proactive identification of pharmacokinetic modifiers, including gastric acid suppression, that may influence drug exposure and clinical outcomes. Other gastrointestinal toxicities, including oral mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and rare high-impact complications, are integrated within the framework through guideline-directed supportive care, class-specific prevention strategies, and defined escalation pathways when clinically indicated. Collectively, these findings support a pharmacist-forward, pharmacology-informed approach to outpatient gastrointestinal toxicity management that integrates mechanism-aware assessment, exposure-risk evaluation, and clearly defined escalation thresholds to preserve treatment continuity while safeguarding patient safety.
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.