Email this article 
THE SIDE EFFECTS OF SORAFENIB, SUNITINIB, AND TEMSIROLIMUS AND THEIR THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA
- Authors: Bhojani N.1,2, Jeldres C.1,2, Patard J.3, Perrotte P.4, Suardi N.1,5, Hutterer G.1,6, Patenaude F.7, Oudard S.8, Karakiewicz P.I.1,2
-
Affiliations:
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal
- 2Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QC
- Department of Urology, Rennes 1 University Hospital
- Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QC
- Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University San Raff aele, Milan
- Department of Urology, Graz Medical University
- Cancer Prevention Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC
- Medical Oncology Department, Gorges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris
- Issue: Vol 5, No 4 (2009)
- Pages: 25-36
- Section: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF URINARY SYSTEM TUMORS
- Published: 30.12.2009
- URL: https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/292
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2009-5-4-25-36
- ID: 292
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Objective: to provide a systematic review of the adverse reactions of sorafenib, sunitinib, and temsirolimus and to outline actions for their prevention and correction.
Materials and methods. To provide a description of the main methods to decrease the toxicity of these drugs, the authors made a systemat- ic review of their adverse reactions, by using the publications available in the PubMed database, monographs on the medicines, and instruc- tions for their medical use.
Results. The frequency of their adverse reactions varied from < 1 to 72%. Grades III—IV side effects are noted more rarely; their incidence is < 1 to 13% for sorafenib, < 1 to 16% for sunitinib, and 1 to 20% for temsirolimus. Sinitinib causes most grades III—IV adverse reactions and sofafenib does the least. However, close comparative studies of the safety of these kinase inhibitors are still lacking. Virtually all side effects can be effectively prevented and treated.
Conclusion. The prevention, timely recognition, and treatment of the adverse reactions of these agents are of great importance, which allows avoidance of the unneeded dosage reduction that may result in worse therapeutic efficiency.
Keywords
About the authors
N. Bhojani
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal; 2Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QC
Author for correspondence.
Canada
C. Jeldres
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal; 2Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QCCanada
J.-J. Patard
Department of Urology, Rennes 1 University HospitalFrance
P. Perrotte
Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QCCanada
N. Suardi
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University San Raff aele, MilanItaly
G. Hutterer
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal; Department of Urology, Graz Medical UniversityAustria
F. Patenaude
Cancer Prevention Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QCCanada
S. Oudard
Medical Oncology Department, Gorges Pompidou European Hospital, ParisFrance
P. I. Karakiewicz
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal; 2Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), QCCanada
References
Supplementary files
