Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Aim. To systematise current data on the mechanisms of anaemia development with major targeted anticancer drug classes, evaluate its impact on quality of life and summarise modern correction approaches. Materials and methods. A narrative literature review was performed searching PubMed, eLIBRARY and Cochrane Library with no date restrictions. Randomised clinical trials, meta-analyses, pharmacovigilance studies and current clinical guidelines (ESMO, ASCO/ASH) were analysed for the following drug classes: antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), PARP inhibitors (PARPi), tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Results. Anaemia occurs in 30–80 % of cancer patients and represents an independent prognostic factor for worse overall survival. ADC haematological toxicity is off-target and payload-driven: conjugates based on monomethylauristatin E carry the highest rates of severe anaemia. PARPi cause anaemia as a class effect via disruption of PARP-2-dependent erythroid differentiation. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors exert haematotoxicity through molecularly specific pathways, including disruption of erythrocyte membrane integrity. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia and aplastic syndrome. Among correction approaches, intravenous iron preparations and sucrosomial iron overcome the hepcidin-mediated functional block unachievable with classical oral salts. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are indicated under strict conditions given thromboembolic risk and potential immunosuppressive effects on the tumour microenvironment. Conclusion. Pathogenetically sound correction of anaemia during targeted therapy requires a differentiated approach accounting for the development mechanism, type of iron deficiency and targeted agent class. Blood count monitoring no later than 2 weeks from the first cycle start is mandatory for patients receiving ADCs, PARPi and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Орлова et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: