-
Advances in Therapy May 2022Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.
METHODS
Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.
RESULTS
A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Dexamethasone; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35246820
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02083-8 -
Cancer Science Jul 2021Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys,...
Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys, chemotherapy in the HD patient requires special considerations concerning dose adjustments to avoid overdose and toxicities. Conversely, some drugs are removed by HD and may expose the patient to undertreatment, therefore the timing of drug administration in relation to HD sessions must be carefully planned. Also, the metabolites of some drugs show different toxicities and dialysability as compared with the parent drug, therefore this must also be catered for. However, the pharmacokinetics of many chemotherapeutics and their metabolites in HD patients are unknown, and the fact that NHL patients are often treated with distinct multiagent chemotherapy regimens makes the situation more complicated. In a realm where uncertainty prevails, case reports and case series reporting on actual treatment and outcomes are extremely valuable and can aid physicians in decision making from drug selection to dosing. We carried out an exhaustive review of the literature and adopted 48 manuscripts consisting of 66 HD patients undergoing 71 chemotherapy regimens for NHL, summarized the data, and provide recommendations concerning dose adjustments and timing of administration for individual chemotherapeutics where possible. The chemotherapy regimens studied in this review include, but are not limited to, rituximab, cyclophosphamide + vincristine + prednisolone (CVP) and cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone (CHOP)-like regimens, chlorambucil, ibrutinib, bendamustine, methotrexate, platinum compounds, cytarabine, gemcitabine, etoposide, ifosfamide, melphalan, busulfan, fludarabine, mogamulizumab, brentuximab vedotin, and Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Child; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Kidney; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Prednisone; Renal Dialysis; Rituximab; Vincristine; Young Adult
PubMed: 33938097
DOI: 10.1111/cas.14933 -
Cell Transplantation 2023High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for selected patients with refractory/relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) Versus BEAM (Carmustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) as Conditioning Regimen Before Autologous Haematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for selected patients with refractory/relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and it is also used as first-line clinical consolidation option for some aggressive NHL subtypes. Conditioning regimen prior to ASCT is one of the essential factors related with clinical outcomes post transplant. The conditioning regimen of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) traditionally is considered the standard of care for patients with lymphoma who are eligible for transplantation. Replacement of carmustine with bendamustine (BeEAM) was described as an alternative conditioning regimen in the autograft setting for patients with lymphoma. Several studies have reported inconsistent clinical outcomes comparing BeEAM and BEAM. Therefore, in the lack of well-designed prospective comparative studies, the comparison of BeEAM versus BEAM is based on retrospective trials. To compare the clinical outcomes between BeEAM and BEAM, we performed a meta-analysis of 10 studies which compared the outcomes between BeEAM and BEAM in patients autografted for lymphoma disease (HL or NHL). We searched article titles and compared transplantation with BeEAM versus BEAM in MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane library, and EMBASE database. Here, we report the results of nine main endpoints in our meta-analysis comparing BeEAM and BEAM, including neutrophil engraftment (NE), platelet engraftment (PE), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse rate (RR), grade 3 mucositis, renal toxicity, and cardiotoxicity. We discovered that the BeEAM regimen was associated with a slightly better PFS [pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.94, = 0.02], lower RR (0.49, 95% CI, 0.31-0.76, = 0.002), higher mucositis (3.43, 95% CI, 2.29-5.16, = 0.001), renal toxicity (4.49, 95% CI, 2.68-7.51, = 0.001), and cardiotoxicity (1.88, 95% CI, 1.03-3.40, = 0.03). We also discovered that the two groups had equivalent NE (pooled WMD -0.64, 95% CI, -1.46 to 0.18, = 0.13), PE (pooled WMD -0.3, 95% CI, -1.68 to 2.28, = 0.77), OS (0.73, 95% CI, 0.52-1.01, = 0.07), and NRM (1.51, 95% CI, 0.76-2.98, = 0.24). The results of this meta-analysis show that the BeEAM regimen is a viable alternative to BEAM. More prospective comparisons between BeEAM and BEAM are required.
Topics: Humans; Carmustine; Transplantation, Autologous; Bendamustine Hydrochloride; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Cytarabine; Etoposide; Melphalan; Cardiotoxicity; Mucositis; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin
PubMed: 37350429
DOI: 10.1177/09636897231179364 -
Cancer Cell International Nov 2021High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple... (Review)
Review
Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/m conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger's test and Begg's test by Stata 15 software.
RESULTS
Ten studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.
PubMed: 34758834
DOI: 10.1186/s12935-021-02313-z -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2017The Hepatic CHEMOSAT Delivery System is an innovative medical device for the treatment of patients with unresectable primary liver tumors or unresectable hepatic... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The Hepatic CHEMOSAT Delivery System is an innovative medical device for the treatment of patients with unresectable primary liver tumors or unresectable hepatic metastases from solid organ malignancies. This system is used to perform chemosaturation percutaneous hepatic perfusion (CS-PHP), a procedure in which a high dose of the chemotherapeutic agent melphalan is delivered directly to the liver while limiting systemic exposure. In a clinical trial program, CS-PHP with melphalan significantly improved hepatic progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatic metastases from ocular or cutaneous melanoma. Clinically meaningful hepatic responses were also observed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors. Furthermore, the results of published studies and case reports demonstrated that CS-PHP with melphalan resulted in favorable tumor response rates in a range of tumor histologies (ocular or cutaneous melanoma, colorectal cancer, and hepatobiliary tumors). Analyses of the safety profile of CS-PHP revealed that the most common adverse effects were hematologic events (thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia), which were clinically manageable. Taken together, these findings indicate that CS-PHP is a promising locoregional therapy for patients with primary and secondary liver tumors and has a acceptable safety profile.
FUNDING
Delcath Systems Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemotherapy, Cancer, Regional Perfusion; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Melanoma; Melphalan; Middle Aged; Skin Neoplasms; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 27798773
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0424-4 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2022Melphalan-based intra-arterial chemotherapy was considered an innovative treatment for retinoblastoma patients because high rates of globe salvage could be obtained. Now...
Melphalan-based intra-arterial chemotherapy was considered an innovative treatment for retinoblastoma patients because high rates of globe salvage could be obtained. Now it has been widely applied for primary or secondary treatment of retinoblastoma. This meta-analysis summarizes the most up-to-date evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of melphalan-based intra-arterial chemotherapy in the treatment of retinoblastoma. The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science electronic databases for studies investigating the safety and effectiveness of melphalan-based intra-arterial chemotherapy in the treatment of retinoblastoma. Studies reporting outcomes and complications of melphalan-based intra-arterial chemotherapy for the treatment of retinoblastoma patients would be included. A total of 33 observational studies that involved 1900 patients and 2336 eyes were included. The overall globe salvage rate was 79.6% (773/971 eyes, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.66, 0.80]) for patients treated with IAC as primary therapy in 28 studies. The overall globe salvage rate was 66.4% (923/1391 eyes, 0.68 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.76]) for patients treated with IAC as secondary therapy in 25 studies. The most common ocular complications were retinopathy (32%) and palpebral edema (29.7%). The most common systemic complications were nausea/vomiting (20.9%). The overall metastasis rate was 1.1% (21/1793 patients, 0.038 [95% CI: 0.020, 0.038]). Twenty-nine studies that involved 1783 patients reported the mortality and the overall mortality was 1.5% (26/1783 patients, 0.029 [95% CI: 0.020, 0.048]). Our meta-analysis showed that melphalan-based IAC treatment was an option for retinoblastoma patients with acceptable efficacy according to retrospective studies. Further high-quality randomized control trials are necessary to provide more accurate and reliable results.
PubMed: 35198033
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3156503 -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2011Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and... (Review)
Review
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and chemotherapy that aim to extend the duration and quality of survival. The majority of patients are not able to withstand intensive treatment, such as high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), and so they are offered single-agent or combination chemotherapy. Combination therapies typically include chemotherapy with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid. More recently, combination therapies have incorporated drugs such as thalidomide (Thalidomide Celgene®, Celgene) and bortezomib (Velcade®, Janssen-Cilag).
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib or thalidomide in combination chemotherapy regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of MM.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from 1999 to 2009 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, grey literature sources and manufacturers' submissions were also searched. Experts in the field were asked to identify additional published and unpublished references.
REVIEW METHODS
Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. The inclusion criteria specified in the protocol were applied to the full text of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (VMP), thalidomide in combination with cyclophosphamide and attenuated dexamethasone (CTDa), and thalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MP).
RESULTS
A total of 1436 records were screened and 40 references were retrieved for the systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the review: one RCT evaluated VMP, three evaluated MPT and one evaluated CTDa. The comparator in all of the included trials was MP. The review found that VMP and MPT can both be considered more clinically effective than MP for the first-line treatment of MM in people for whom high-dose therapy and SCT would not be appropriate. CTDa was more effective than MP in terms of complete response but data on survival outcomes did not meet the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that MPT has a greater probability of being cost-effective than either VMP or CTDa.
LIMITATIONS
For most RCTs, details needed to judge study quality were incompletely reported. All studies stated that the analyses followed intention-to-treat principles but none adequately reported data censoring. Only one RCT contributed data on VMP and the published peer-reviewed follow-up data were immature. For MPT, overall survival data from two trials were eligible for inclusion but the doses of thalidomide differed between the trials and the treatment period was not reflective of current UK practice so the generalisability of the findings was uncertain. Two RCTs had a maintenance phase with thalidomide that did not meet the inclusion criteria so some of these results were not eligible for the review. Limited evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was provided by the single trial of VMP versus MP.
CONCLUSIONS
Service provision is unlikely to change greatly. As uncertainties remain, further research is needed regarding the use of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimens. Head-to-head trials of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimes are required, including assessments of patient HRQoL in response to treatment.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alkylating Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclophosphamide; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Melphalan; Multiple Myeloma; Pyrazines; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Thalidomide
PubMed: 22146234
DOI: 10.3310/hta15410 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Mar 2022Cancer in neonates and infants is a rare but challenging entity. Treatment is complicated by marked physiological changes during the first year of life, excess rates of... (Review)
Review
Cancer in neonates and infants is a rare but challenging entity. Treatment is complicated by marked physiological changes during the first year of life, excess rates of toxicity, mortality, and late effects. Dose optimisation of chemotherapeutics may be an important step to improving outcomes. Body size-based dosing is used for most anticancer drugs used in infants. However, dose regimens are generally not evidence based, and dosing strategies are frequently inconsistent between tumour types and treatment protocols. In this review, we collate available pharmacological evidence supporting dosing regimens in infants for a wide range of cytotoxic drugs. A systematic review was conducted, and available data ranked by a level of evidence (1-5) and a grade of recommendation (A-D) provided on a consensus basis, with recommended dosing approaches indicated as appropriate. For 9 of 29 drugs (busulfan, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, daunorubicin, etoposide, fludarabine, isotretinoin, melphalan and vincristine), grade A was scored, indicating sufficient pharmacological evidence to recommend a dosing algorithm for infants. For busulfan and carboplatin, sufficient data were available to recommend therapeutic drug monitoring in infants. For eight drugs (actinomycin D, blinatumomab, dinutuximab, doxorubicin, mercaptopurine, pegaspargase, thioguanine and topotecan), some pharmacological evidence was available to guide dosing (graded as B). For the remaining drugs, including commonly used agents such as cisplatin, cytarabine, ifosfamide, and methotrexate, pharmacological evidence for dosing in infants was limited or non-existent: grades C and D were scored for 10 and 2 drugs, respectively. The review provides clinically relevant evidence-based dosing guidance for cytotoxic drugs in neonates and infants.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Busulfan; Carboplatin; Etoposide; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 34865945
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.001 -
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research... 2016To review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) assessing bortezomib (BTZ) for multiple myeloma (MM) and explore possible bias affecting the cost-effectiveness of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) assessing bortezomib (BTZ) for multiple myeloma (MM) and explore possible bias affecting the cost-effectiveness of BTZ.
METHODS
Literature was searched for published CEAs assessing BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens for MM from 2003 to 2015. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were adjusted by 2014 country-specific gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) to compare the cost-effectiveness threshold of the World Health Organization (3 GDPPC per gained quality-adjusted life year [QALY]).
RESULTS
A total of 17 published CEAs were included in this review. When compared to non-BTZ treatments, BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective for induction treatment prior to stem cell transplantation (SCT) in Canada, Poland, and Germany (ICER per QALY: 0.9299-2.254 GDPPC). BTZ/melphalan/prednisolone (VMP) was cost-effective for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients when compared to melphalan plus prednisolone (MP), melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide with lenalidomide maintenance, and cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone (CTD) (ICER per QALY: dominant to 2.374 GDPPC) in Canada, UK, and USA. BTZ was cost-effective for relapsed/refractory MM when compared to best supportive care (ICER per life year: 0.9317-1.8210 GDPPC) in the UK and the USA, thalidomide in USA (0.5178 GDPPC/LY), and dexamethasone (DEX) in four Nordic countries (€54,451-€81,560/QALY). However, the cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MP plus thalidomide (MPT) and continuous lenalidomide (LEN) plus low-dose DEX (RD) for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM patients could be unreliable because of the bias associated with model design and the indirect comparisons of treatment effects.
CONCLUSION
Published CEAs suggested that BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective when compared to most non-BTZ treatments for MM. However, the conflicting cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MPT for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM needs more robust evidence for further clarification.
PubMed: 27217786
DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S104195 -
Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental Sep 2022Several anticancer agents have been associated with cardiac toxic effects. The currently proposed mechanisms to explain cardiotoxicity differ among anticancer agents,... (Review)
Review
Several anticancer agents have been associated with cardiac toxic effects. The currently proposed mechanisms to explain cardiotoxicity differ among anticancer agents, but in fact, the specific modulation is not completely elucidated. Thus, this systematic review aims to provide an integrative perspective of the molecular mechanisms underlying the toxicity of anticancer agents on heart muscle while using a high-throughput technology, mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics. A literature search using PubMed database led to the selection of 27 studies, of which 13 reported results exclusively on animal models, 13 on cardiomyocyte-derived cell lines and only one included both animal and a cardiomyocyte line. The reported anticancer agents were the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib, the anthracyclines daunorubicin, doxorubicin, epirubicin and idarubicin, the antimicrotubule agent docetaxel, the alkylating agent melphalan, the anthracenedione mitoxantrone, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) erlotinib, lapatinib, sorafenib and sunitinib, and the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab. Regarding the MS-based proteomic approaches, electrophoretic separation using two-dimensional (2D) gels coupled with tandem MS (MS/MS) and liquid chromatography-MS/MS (LC-MS/MS) were the most common. Overall, the studies highlighted 1826 differentially expressed proteins across 116 biological processes. Most of them were grouped in larger processes and critically analyzed in the present review. The selection of studies using proteomics on heart muscle allowed to obtain information about the anticancer therapy-induced modulation of numerous proteins in this tissue and to establish connections that have been disregarded in other studies. This systematic review provides interesting points for a comprehensive understanding of the cellular cardiotoxicity mechanisms of different anticancer drugs.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Cardiotoxicity; Chromatography, Liquid; Proteomics; Tandem Mass Spectrometry
PubMed: 35809654
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155250