3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Novel molecular biomarkers of cancer therapy‐induced cardiotoxicity in adult population: a scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          Cancer treatments are associated with cardiotoxic events that predispose to cardiac pathology and compromise the survival of patients, making necessary the identification of new molecular biomarkers to detect cardiotoxicity. This scoping review aims to identify the available evidence on novel molecular biomarkers associated with cardiotoxicity in the adult population undergoing cancer therapy.

          Methods and results

          The databases Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase were screened for the identification of published studies until 23 August 2020, searching for novel molecular biomarkers reported in cancer therapy‐related cardiac dysfunction in adult patients. A total of 42 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Fourteen studies reported 44 new protein biomarkers, 18 studies reported 57 new single nucleotide polymorphism biomarkers, and 11 studies reported 171 new gene expression profiles associated with cardiotoxicity. Data were extracted for 272 novel molecular biomarkers reported and evaluated in 7084 cancer patients, of which only 13 were identified in more than one study (MPO, sST2, GDF‐15, TGF‐B1, rs1056892, rs1883112, rs4673, rs13058338, rs1695, miR‐1, miR‐25‐3p, miR‐34a‐5p, and miR‐423‐5p), showing values for area under the curve > 0.73 (range 0.74–0.85), odds ratio 0.26–7.17, and hazard ratio 1.28–1.80.

          Conclusions

          Multiple studies presented a significant number of novel molecular biomarkers as promising predictors for risk assessment of cardiac dysfunction related to cancer therapy, but the characteristics of the studies carried out and the determinations applied do not allow suggesting the clinical use of these molecular biomarkers in the assessment of cancer therapy‐induced cardiotoxicity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                angela.riffo@ufrontera.cl
                Journal
                ESC Heart Fail
                ESC Heart Fail
                10.1002/(ISSN)2055-5822
                EHF2
                ESC Heart Failure
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2055-5822
                08 March 2022
                June 2022
                : 9
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/ehf2.v9.3 )
                : 1651-1665
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias mención Biología Celular y Molecular Aplicada Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 2 ] Departamento de Fisiología Universidad de Valencia Valencia Spain
                [ 3 ] Departamento de Cirugía Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 4 ] Centro de Excelencia en Estudios Morfológicos y Quirúrgicos (CEMyQ) Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 5 ] Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Médicas Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 6 ] Centro de Excelencia de Modelación y Computación Científica Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 7 ] Departamento de Ciencias Básicas Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                [ 8 ] Vicerrectoría Académica Universidad de La Frontera Temuco Chile
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Angela L. Riffo‐Campos, Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. Email: angela.riffo@ 123456ufrontera.cl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6300-3338
                Article
                EHF213735 ESCHF-21-00331
                10.1002/ehf2.13735
                9065865
                35261178
                f788c315-6382-4707-b6cc-20be5b08c731
                © 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 03 November 2021
                : 27 March 2021
                : 11 November 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 15, Words: 3965
                Funding
                Funded by: ANID/Doctorado Nacional
                Award ID: 21150650
                Funded by: ANID/Fondecyt‐Postdoctorado
                Award ID: 3180486
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.4 mode:remove_FC converted:04.05.2022

                cardiotoxicity,molecular biomarkers,lvef,ctrcd,cancer therapy,cardio‐oncology/onco‐cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article