Evidence Hub

Adverse kidney related events following targeted therapies in lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Song Ren, Wei Wang, Xiaoxiu Yao, Wen-feng Fang, Gui-Sen Li, Yunlin Feng, Min Xia

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025

11,497 participants

Abstract

Background To summarize current evidence on kidney related adverse events (AEs) following targeted therapies in lung cancer from trial settings. Methods A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Library. Randomized controlled trials that had reported kidney related AEs following targeted therapies in lung cancer were eligible. Outcomes included renal dysfunction as reported, increased serum creatinine, proteinuria, urinary tract infection (UTI), and electrolyte disorders. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. The incidence of the examined outcomes, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were combined using a random-effects model. Network analysis was applied if the comparisons had passed the consistency test. Publication bias was assessed using Funnel plot analysis. Results 57 studies encompassing 11,497 patients were included. The pooled incidences (95% CI) of acute kidney injury (AKI), increased serum creatinine, proteinuria, and UTI following targeted therapies in lung cancer were 1% (0%, 2%), 4% (1%, 8%), 9% (6%, 13%), and 6% (2%, 12%), respectively. Targeted therapies did not increase the risk of AKI, yet were associated with higher incidence of proteinuria, particularly vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors containing therapies. Multiple electrolyte disorders could be observed following targeted treatments, with the pooled incidences ranging from 4% to 21%; however, most…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 11,497 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free