Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Monitoring 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 quali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakamura, Michio, Funakoshi, Taro, Kataoka, Shigeki, Horimatsu, Takahiro, Nishikawa, Yoshitaka, Matsubara, Takeshi, Mizukami, Takuro, Goto, Tomoyuki, Tsuchihashi, Kenji, Baba, Eishi, Tsumura, Takehiko, Mihara, Yoshiaki, Hamaguchi, Tetsuya, Yanagita, Motoko, Muto, Manabu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9080145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35525917
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09611-3
_version_ 1784702718893359104
author Nakamura, Michio
Funakoshi, Taro
Kataoka, Shigeki
Horimatsu, Takahiro
Nishikawa, Yoshitaka
Matsubara, Takeshi
Mizukami, Takuro
Goto, Tomoyuki
Tsuchihashi, Kenji
Baba, Eishi
Tsumura, Takehiko
Mihara, Yoshiaki
Hamaguchi, Tetsuya
Yanagita, Motoko
Muto, Manabu
author_facet Nakamura, Michio
Funakoshi, Taro
Kataoka, Shigeki
Horimatsu, Takahiro
Nishikawa, Yoshitaka
Matsubara, Takeshi
Mizukami, Takuro
Goto, Tomoyuki
Tsuchihashi, Kenji
Baba, Eishi
Tsumura, Takehiko
Mihara, Yoshiaki
Hamaguchi, Tetsuya
Yanagita, Motoko
Muto, Manabu
author_sort Nakamura, Michio
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Monitoring 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. METHODS: From 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. RESULTS: Among 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. CONCLUSION: Urine dipstick test results may overestimate proteinuria, and the UPCR result tended to be more critical than the QV when deciding the treatment policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a multiple institutional retrospectively registered observational trial. Clinical Trial number: University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (protocol ID UMIN000042545). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09611-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9080145
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90801452022-05-09 Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study) Nakamura, Michio Funakoshi, Taro Kataoka, Shigeki Horimatsu, Takahiro Nishikawa, Yoshitaka Matsubara, Takeshi Mizukami, Takuro Goto, Tomoyuki Tsuchihashi, Kenji Baba, Eishi Tsumura, Takehiko Mihara, Yoshiaki Hamaguchi, Tetsuya Yanagita, Motoko Muto, Manabu BMC Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Monitoring 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. METHODS: From 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. RESULTS: Among 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. CONCLUSION: Urine dipstick test results may overestimate proteinuria, and the UPCR result tended to be more critical than the QV when deciding the treatment policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a multiple institutional retrospectively registered observational trial. Clinical Trial number: University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (protocol ID UMIN000042545). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09611-3. BioMed Central 2022-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9080145/ /pubmed/35525917 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09611-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Nakamura, Michio
Funakoshi, Taro
Kataoka, Shigeki
Horimatsu, Takahiro
Nishikawa, Yoshitaka
Matsubara, Takeshi
Mizukami, Takuro
Goto, Tomoyuki
Tsuchihashi, Kenji
Baba, Eishi
Tsumura, Takehiko
Mihara, Yoshiaki
Hamaguchi, Tetsuya
Yanagita, Motoko
Muto, Manabu
Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title_full Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title_fullStr Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title_full_unstemmed Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title_short Decision making for anti-VEGF inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (VERSiON UP study)
title_sort decision making for anti-vegf inhibitor continuation: dip stick? or urine protein/creatinine ratio? (version up study)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9080145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35525917
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09611-3
work_keys_str_mv AT nakamuramichio decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT funakoshitaro decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT kataokashigeki decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT horimatsutakahiro decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT nishikawayoshitaka decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT matsubaratakeshi decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT mizukamitakuro decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT gototomoyuki decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT tsuchihashikenji decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT babaeishi decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT tsumuratakehiko decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT miharayoshiaki decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT hamaguchitetsuya decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT yanagitamotoko decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy
AT mutomanabu decisionmakingforantivegfinhibitorcontinuationdipstickorurineproteincreatinineratioversionupstudy