Key result
Smoking is linked to ~2.5-fold higher odds of early VEGFR inhibitor-induced hypertension toxicity.
Why the study?
VEGFR inhibitor-induced hypertension is a recognized cardiotoxicity but remains poorly characterized in terms of outcomes, predictors, and protective mechanisms.
What are the independent predictors of early hypertension toxicity in cancer patients initiating vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy?
Cohort (n=290)
What are the independent predictors of early hypertension toxicity in cancer patients initiating vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy?
In cancer patients treated with VEGFR inhibitors, smoking is an independent risk factor for early hypertension toxicity, whereas baseline use of antihypertensive medication offers a protective effect.
Smoking history may prompt closer BP surveillance in VEGFR inhibitor recipients; hypothesis-generating for prospective validation and intervention trials.
Background Hypertension (HTN) is a recognized cardiotoxicity in cancer patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRIs), yet VEGFRI-induced HTN remains poorly characterized. This study evaluated outcomes, predictive factors, and potential protective mechanisms for HTN in patients receiving VEGFRIs. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 290 patients treated with axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, or pazopanib (2015–2023), analyzing demographics, comorbidities, and antihypertensive management. Patients were stratified by presence of hypertension toxicity (HTN-TOX), defined as initiation or escalation of antihypertensive therapy within 30 days of VEGFRI start. Outcomes included major cardiovascular events and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors. Results Fifty-nine patients (20%) developed HTN-TOX. Baseline systolic blood pressure was modestly higher in the HTN-TOX group (135±16 vs 130±16 mmHg, p = 0.044) and remained significantly elevated at one month (141±21 vs 132±19 mmHg, p = 0.002). Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and cancer therapy were otherwise similar, with a non-significant trend toward more baseline HTN in the HTN-TOX group (83% vs 74%, p = 0.18). On univariate analysis, HTN-TOX was associated with greater thiazide use (36% vs 19%, p = 0.009) and trended toward higher ACEI/ARB use (63% vs 52%, p = 0.18). Kaplan–Meier survival (p = 0.13) and incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or heart failure did not differ. On multivariable analysis, smoking independently predicted risk for HTN-TOX (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.25–4.88, p = 0.009), while ≥1 baseline antihypertensive was protective (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11–0.63, p = 0.003). Conclusion HTN-TOX occurred in one-fifth of patients within 30 days of VEGFRI initiation. Smoking was an independent risk factor, while baseline antihypertensive therapy was protective. These findings support optimizing blood pressure control before VEGFRI therapy and highlight the need for further studies to define preventive strategies and clarify clinical implications. Clinical Implications: VEGFRI-associated hypertension develops quickly and affects a significant subset of patients, underscoring the importance of proactive blood pressure monitoring and management. Identifying smoking as a risk factor and baseline antihypertensive therapy as protective suggests that targeted risk reduction and optimization of antihypertensive regimens before treatment may improve patient safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Cancer requiring VEGFRI therapy (n=290). Smoking vs. Non-smokers was evaluated on Hypertension toxicity (HTN-TOX), defined as initiation or escalation of antihypertensive therapy within 30 days of VEGFRI start (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.25-4.88, p=0.009). In cancer patients receiving VEGFR inhibitors, smoking independently predicted early hypertension toxicity (OR 2.45; 95% CI 1.25–4.88; p=0.009), while baseline antihypertensive therapy was protective.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: