Skip to main content
Frontiers in Oncology logoLink to Frontiers in Oncology
. 2022 Jan 5;11:757456. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.757456

Association of Hypokalemia Incidence and Better Treatment Response in NSCLC Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review on Anti-EGFR Targeted Therapy Clinical Trials

Jiawei Zhou 1,, Jianling Bai 1,, Yuanping Yue 1,, Xin Chen 1, Theis Lange 2, Dongfang You 1,*, Yang Zhao 1,3,*
PMCID: PMC8766730  PMID: 35070968

Abstract

Background

This meta-analysis was designed to explore the relationship between the level of serum potassium and the treatment effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

Methods

We searched phase II/III prospective clinical trials on treatment with EGFR antagonists for aNSCLC patients. The objective response rate (ORR) and/or the disease control rate (DCR) and the incidence of hypokalemia of high grade (equal to or greater than grade 3) were summarized from all eligible trials. Heterogeneity, which was evaluated by Cochran’s Q-test and the I 2 statistics, was used to determine whether a random effects model or a fixed effects model will be used to calculate pooled proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed on different interventions, line types, phases, and drug numbers.

Results

From 666 potentially relevant articles, 36 clinical trials with a total of 9,761 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled ORR was 16.25% (95%CI = 12.45–21.19) when the incidence of hypokalemia was 0%–5%, and it increased to 34.58% (95%CI = 24.09–45.07) when the incidence of hypokalemia was greater than 5%. The pooled DCR were 56.03% (95%CI = 45.03–67.03) and 64.38% (95%CI = 48.60–80.17) when the incidence rates of hypokalemia were 0%–5% and greater than 5%, respectively. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the results of the whole population, except for not first-line treatment, which may have been confounded by malnutrition or poor quality of life in long-term survival.

Conclusion

The efficacy of anti-EGFR targeted therapy was positively associated with the hypokalemia incidence rate. Treatment effects on the different serum potassium strata need to be considered in future clinical trials with targeted therapy.

Keywords: hypokalemia, targeted therapy, EGFR antagonist, NSCLC, meta-analysis

Introduction

Lung cancer is the most common cause of death from cancer, accounting for 1.80 million deaths in 2020, and its incidence was still increasing (1, 2). Based on cell origin, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is responsible for 80%–85% of lung primary malignancies (3). As a transmembrane glycoprotein, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was the first growth factor receptor to be proposed as a target for cancer therapy (4). EGFR is a member of the ErbB family of receptors that, once activated, leads to the excitation of subsequent intracellular signaling pathways; it can regulate cellular proliferation, differentiation, migration, and apoptosis (5, 6). There are two main classes of EGFR antagonists: anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (e.g., cetuximab and panitumumab) and small-molecule EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (e.g., erlotinib and gefitinib) (4). These antagonists exert their activities through binding to the extracellular domain of EGFR, competing for receptor binding by occluding the ligand-binding region, blocking the ligand-induced EGFR tyrosine kinase activation, and inhibiting EGFR autophosphorylation and downstream signaling (4, 7). EGFR antagonists are beneficial for human epithelial cancers, especially for lung carcinoma.

Potassium is an important element in the human body, amounting to about 50 mEq/kg. Ninety-eight percent of K+ is found within cells, while only 2% is in the extracellular fluid (8). There is evidence showing that elevated extracellular potassium characteristic of the extracellular space within tumors reduced the uptake and consumption of local nutrients by antitumor T cells (9). T cells in the tumor microenvironment are under metabolic constraints that dampen their activity and lead to cancer progression (10), indicating that high levels of potassium in the tumor microenvironment may suppress T-cell effector function. A cohort study also revealed that the level of fasting serum potassium in healthy men was positively associated with long-term cancer risk (11). Moreover, previous studies have claimed that hypokalemia is a major adverse event in the treatment of NSCLC that may provoke cardiac arrhythmias and/or respiratory arrest, thus requiring close monitoring and rapid correction (12, 13). In the immune system, the disorder of potassium homeostasis has been indicated as a determinant of immune dysfunction (8).

Therefore, we hypothesized that there would be an association between the level of serum potassium and the effect of targeted therapy on NSCLC patients. To verify the hypothesis, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the relation between the efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy on NSCLC and the incidence of hypokalemia.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in electronic datasets from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in April 2019 using the following various combinations of different keywords: “EGFR”, “epidermal growth factor receptor”, “monoclonal antibodies”, “tyrosine kinase inhibitors”, “cetuximab”, “gefitinib”, “erlotinib”, “icotinib”, “dacomitinib”, “afatinib”, “osimertinib”, “necitumumab”, “panitumumab”, “non-small cell lung cancer” “NSCLC”, and “hypokalemia”. The search was restricted to clinical trials published in English. The relevant reviews and meta-analyses were also examined for inclusive trials.

Selection Criteria

Inclusion of relevant studies was based on the following criteria: 1) patients were pathologically confirmed to have stage III or IV NSCLC; 2) research studies were phase II/III prospective clinical trials; 3) all patients were administered anti-EGFR therapy alone or combined with other therapy; and 4) studies that reported the objective response rate (ORR) and/or disease control rate (DCR) and the exact number of patients with occurrences of hypokalemia of high grade (equal to or greater than grade 3).

Data Extraction and Study Quality Assessment

Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies and reached consensus on all items. The following pieces of information were abstracted from the included studies: first author, publication year, country/region, phase of trial, line of treatment, intervention, number of patients, median age, sex ratio, ORR, DCR, and incidences of hypokalemia of grade ≥3. The study quality was independently assessed by the same two reviewers according to the Jadad score, which included randomization, blinding, and withdrawal, ranging from 0 to 5 points (14). Among all the included trials, the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody or TKI treatment arms were included; otherwise, chemotherapy arms were collected for supplementary analysis. Placebo arms were excluded.

Statistical Analysis

The ORR, DCR, and the incidence of hypokalemia of high grade (grade 3 or higher) were summarized from the data of all eligible trials. We calculated the proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ORR and DCR for each eligible trial. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the Cochran’s Q-test and the I 2 statistics (15). The pooled proportions were calculated using a random effects model when the p-value <0.10 for the Q-test or the I 2 >50%. Otherwise, a fixed effects model was chosen. All p-values were two-tailed, and statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05. To determine whether the intervention type, line of treatment, trial phase, and drug numbers could represent potential sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis was performed. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with the pooled ORR/DCR re-calculated after excluding each trial at a time individually. All data analyses and the generation of forest plots were performed using R software (version 3.6.2).

Results

Of the 666 potentially relevant articles with anti-EGFR therapy screened, 36 clinical trials were finally included in this meta-analysis ( Figure 1 ). Of these 36 studies, 15 were single-armed trials and 21 were randomized controlled trials. Eighteen studies used anti-EGFR treatment as first-line therapy and 18 did not. Treatment with anti-EGFR TKIs was evaluated in 26 studies, while 10 were studies on treatment with monoclonal antibodies. Twenty-five were phase II and 11 were phase III trials. A total of 9,761 patients were available for analysis. The characteristics of these trials are listed in Table 1 . The relationship between hypokalemia incidence and ORR/DCR is scattered and fitted in Figure 2 . A positive association could be observed in both scatter plots, except for an outlier in the lower right corner of the ORR plot. Except for the outlier, the highest hypokalemia incidence rate was 11.76%, with ORR of 82.35% and DCR of 94.12%. The lowest hypokalemia incidence rate was 0.00% in nine arms, with ORR ranging from 2.86% to 55.97% and DCR from 18.18% to 87.42%.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Outline of the literature search process.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

First author Year Country/region Trial design Trial phase Treatment line Participants, n Sex (male/female) Age (years), median Intervention Intervention type Efficacy Jadad score
Niho et al. (16) 2006 Japan SAT II FL 40 24/16 61 Gefitinib TKI ORR, DCR
Jackman et al. (17) 2007 SAT II FL 80 40/40 75 Erlotinib TKI ORR, DCR
Belani et al. (18) 2008 SAT II FL 80 42/38 63 Cetuximab+docetaxel+carboplatin MA+other ORR, DCR
Crino et al. (19) 2008 RCT II FL 97 75/22 74 Gefitinib TKI ORR, DCR 2
99 73/26 74 Vinorelbine other
Lynch et al. (20) 2009 USA, Canada RCT II NFL 25 11/14 62 Erlotinib+Bortezomib TKI+other ORR, DCR 3
NFL 25 13/12 64 Erlotinib TKI
Pirker et al. (21) 2009 RCT III FL 557 385/172 59 Chemotherapy+cetuximab MA+other ORR 2
568 405/163 60 Chemotherapy other
Govindan et al. (22) 2011 RCT II FL 53 24/19 66 Carboplatin+pemetrexed+cetuximab MA+other ORR, DCR 2
48 27/21 65 Carboplatin+pemetrexed other
Ahn et al. (23) 2012 East Asia RCT II FL 39 9/30 56 PC+gefitinib TKI+other ORR, DCR 3
31 6/25 57 PC+pemetrexed other
Blumenschein et al. (24) 2012 SAT II NFL 30 18/12 64 sunitinib+erlotinib TKI+other ORR
Miller et al. (25) 2012 15 countries RCT IIB/III NFL 390 159/231 58 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR 5
195 78/117 59 placebo other
Scagliotti et al. (26) 2012 RCT III NFL 480 297/183 61 sunitinib+erlotinib TKI+other ORR, DCR 5
NFL 480 284/196 61 placebo+erlotinib TKI+other
Belani et al. (27) 2013 RCT II NFL 21 9/12 63 PF-3512676+erlotinib TKI+other ORR, DCR 2
NFL 22 13/9 64 erlotinib TKI
Kim et al. (28) 2013 SAT II FL 102 52/50 64 Cetuximab+caboplatin+paclitoxel+ bevacizumab MA+other ORR, DCR
Kim et al. (29) 2013 Canada, USA RCT III NFL 301 173/128 64 Premetrexed+cetuximab MA+other ORR, DCR 2
304 188/116 65 Premetrexed other
NFL 167 92/75 65 Docetaxel+cetuximab MA+other ORR, DCR
166 93/73 65 Docetaxel other
Ellis et al. (30) 2014 12 countries RCT III NFL 480 244/236 63.5 Dacomitinib TKI ORR, DCR 5
240 120/120 65.5 Placebo other
Janne et al. (31) 2014 China (Hong Kong), Japan, South Korea, China (Taiwan), USA SAT II FL 89 29/60 62 Dacomitinib TKI ORR, DCR
Wu (32) 2014 China, Thailand, South Korea RCT III FL 242 87/155 58 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR 3
122 39/83 58 Gemcitabine+cisplatin other
Han et al. (33) 2015 SAT II NFL 37 21/16 56 Gefitinib+vorinostat TKI+other ORR, DCR
Heigener et al. (34) 2015 SAT IIIB FL 157 116/41 Chemotherapy+cetuximab every 2 weeks MA+other ORR, DCR
154 106/48 Chemotherapy +cetuximab weekly MA+other
Lara et al. (35) 2015 SAT II NFL 45 14/31 64 Erlotinib+MK-2206 TKI+other ORR, DCR
NFL 35 15/20 63 Erlotinib+MK-2206 TKI+other ORR, DCR
Lee et al. (36) 2015 East Asia RCT II NFL 41 8/33 57 Pemetrexed+ erlotinib TKI+other ORR, DCR 1
NFL 49 14/35 56.2 Erlotinib TKI
43 15/28 54.8 Pemetrexed other
Non-East Asia RCT II NFL 37 12/25 55 Pemetrexed+erlotinib TKI+other ORR, DCR 1
NFL 33 14/19 50.5 Erlotinib TKI
37 20/17 57.6 Pemetrexed other
Liu et al. (37) 2015 SAT I/II FL 17 13/4 58 Cetuximab+inductive chemotherapy+chemoradiotherapy MA+other ORR, DCR
Wu et al. (38) 2015 China, Malaysia, Philippines RCT III FL 110 42/68 57.5 Erlotinib TKI ORR, DCR 2
107 42/65 56 Gemcitabine+cisplatin other
Lee et al. (39) 2016 RCT II NFL 25 11/14 63 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR 1
NFL 28 10/18 59 Erlotinib TKI
Park et al. (40) 2016 13 countries RCT IIB FL 160 69/91 63 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR 3
FL 159 53/106 63 Gefitinib TKI
Han et al. (41) 2017 South Korea SAT II NFL 39 10/29 62 Poziotinib TKI ORR, DCR
Spigel et al. (42) 2017 SAT II FL 66 27/39 65 Panitumumab+pemetrexed+carboplatin MA+other ORR, DCR
Spigel et al. (43) 2017 RCT II NFL 24 8/16 67 Erlotinib+sorafenib TKI+other ORR, DCR 2
28 10/18 63 Sorafenib other
Thomas et al. (44) 2017 Germany, USA RCT II FL 59 44/15 58 BTH1677+cetuximab+carboplatin+paclitaxel MA+other ORR, DCR 2
FL 29 17/12 65 Cetuximab+carboplatin+paclitaxel MA+other
Wakelee et al. (45) 2017 RCT II NFL 13 6/7 64.8 Cabozantinib+erlotinib TKI+other ORR 1
15 3/12 54.7 Cabozantinib other
Wu et al. (46) 2017 China, China (Hong Kong), Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Spain RCT III FL 227 81/146 62 Dacomitinib TKI ORR, DCR 3
FL 225 100/125 61 Gefitinib TKI
Hata et al. (47) 2018 SAT II NFL 32 11/21 66 Afatinib+bevacizumab TKI+other ORR, DCR
Herbst et al. (48) 2018 RCT III FL 656 385/271 63 Chemotherapy+cetuximab MA+other ORR 3
657 359/298 63 Chemotherapy other
Lu et al. (49) 2018 RCT III NFL 398 335/63 65 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR 3
NFL 397 331/66 64 Erlotinib TKI
Oda et al. (50) 2018 SAT II NFL 12 3/9 67.5 Afatinib TKI ORR, DCR
Reckamp et al. (51) 2019 SAT II NFL 37 14/23 64.6 Cabozantinib+erlotinib TKI ORR, DCR

RCT, randomized controlled trial; SAT, single-arm trial; FL, first line; NFL, not first line; MA, monoclonal antibodies; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; ORR, objective response rate; DCR, disease control rate.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Scatter plot and fitted line for the incidence of hypokalemia and objective response rate (ORR)/disease control rate (DCR).

We observed that the pooled ORR was positively associated with the incidence of hypokalemia. The pooled ORR was 16.25% (95%CI = 12.45–21.19) when the incidence of hypokalemia was 0%–5%, while it increased to 34.58% (95%CI = 24.09–45.07) when the incidence of hypokalemia was greater than 5% ( Figure 3 ). In the subgroup analysis on intervention type, the association was consistent. For TKI therapy, the pooled ORRs were 18.10% (95%CI = 13.73–23.86%) and 25.24% (95%CI = 10.29–40.19) when the hypokalemia incidence rates were ≤5% and >5%, respectively. Similar better ORRs with higher hypokalemia incidence rates could be observed in the monoclonal antibody treatment arms. As for the line of treatment, the pooled ORRs related to first-line treatment were 36.19% (95%CI = 19.59–52.80) and 53.01% (95%CI = 44.43–61.59) when the hypokalemia incidence rates were 0%–5% and >5%, respectively. However, for the other treatment types that were not first line, the ORRs were 11.58% (95%CI = 7.58–17.70) and 9.40% (95%CI = 7.31–11.49) when the hypokalemia incidence rates were 0%–5% and >5%, respectively. For the subgroup analysis on the different phases and drug numbers, the results were consistent with those of the whole population ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of the ORR of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapy for different incidence rates of grade 3–5 hypokalemia. ORR, objective response rate; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

The pooled DCRs associated with EGFR antagonist were 56.03% (95%CI = 45.03–67.03) when the incidence of hypokalemia was 0%–5% and 64.38% (95%CI = 48.60–80.17) when the incidence of hypokalemia was >5% ( Figure 4 ). In the subgroup analysis on the different intervention types, first-line treatment, different phases, and different drug numbers, the results were consistent with those observed in the whole population. However, similar to the ORR for the not first-line treatment, a higher DCR was observed with a lower hypokalemia incidence rate ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of the DCR of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapy for different incidence rates of grade 3–5 hypokalemia. DCR, disease control rate; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Sensitivity analysis showed non-obvious pooled ORR/DCR changes observed when excluding each trial at a time ( Supplementary Tables S1 , S2 ).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis suggesting an association of an elevated incidence of hypokalemia with an increase in anti-EGFR treatment efficacy. The pooled ORRs were 16.25% and 34.58% and the pooled DCRs were 56.03% and 64.38% when the hypokalemia incidence rate ranges from ≤5% to >5%. These results indicated that the response to cancer therapy was associated with the serum potassium level.

In the carcinoma microenvironment, the concentrations of ions would be affected by high local levels of cellular apoptosis and necrosis. Potassium, as the most abundant intracellular ion, was significantly elevated 5–10 times in the tumor interstitial fluid compared with that in normal serum and benign tissue (52). Similarly, specific experimental apoptosis or necrosis was observed with the release of potassium into the extracellular microenvironment (52, 53). The elevated K+ acutely inhibited the T-cell receptor-induced production of effector cytokines, which resulted in subsequent immunosuppression (52). The elevated serum potassium limited the activity of antitumor T cells with metabolic constraints, eventually contributing to cancer progression (10). From this point of view, the hypokalemic microenvironment may strengthen the function of the immune system against tumor cells. The results were contradictory to the ORR and DCR ( Supplementary Tables S3 , S4 ) when considering the association between the effect of chemotherapy and the incidence of hypokalemia in our meta-analysis. Although a higher hypokalemia incidence was associated with a higher DCR, we observed inconsistent results for ORR. Thus, the association between cancer therapy and serum potassium level may be limited to targeted therapy. However, the exact mechanism between targeted therapy and hypokalemia is still unknown, and some researchers conjecture that this phenomenon may be due to the direct nephrotoxicity of targeted therapy (54, 55).

Overall, a higher incidence of hypokalemia was associated with better ORR and DCR. However, we observed an inverse association for the not first-line studies. In antitumor clinical trials, the possible causes of hypokalemia included drug nephrotoxicity and poor quality of life induced by the side effects of drugs, such as diarrhea, anorexia, and vomiting. A low serum potassium level enhanced the function of the immune system, making targeted therapies more effective. On the other hand, the better treatment effect of an anti-EGFR regimen with higher ORR and DCR may indicate longer survival of carcinoma patients, but possibly with worse quality of life. It is possible that the positive effect of hypokalemia on cancer treatment may be confounded by malnutrition with high loss and/or low potassium intake. From this viewpoint, the benefit from hypokalemia was offset by patients’ poor living conditions. To further explore our hypothesis on quality of life, the toxicity data and adverse event records of the 36 studies were collected. A higher incidence (6.7%) of diarrhea (grade ≥3) could be observed in the EGFR antagonist arm compared with that (1.3%) in other treatment arms (including chemotherapy, placebo, etc., data not shown). In the EGFR antagonist arm, there was a difference between the line of treatment and the incidence of diarrhea (grade ≥3), 3.94% and 9.17% for first line and not first line, respectively. Thus, it is possible that the change of serum potassium caused by diarrhea confounded the relationship between serum potassium level and treatment efficacy in the not first-line intervention. As for anorexia/decreased appetite (grade ≥3), weight loss/decreased weight (grade ≥3), and nausea/vomiting (grade ≥3), there were no obvious differences between the anti-EGFR arm and other treatment arms (data not shown). Also, in the EGFR antagonist arm, there was little difference between the different lines of treatment. Future mechanism research works and clinical trials are warranted to explore the effects of targeted therapy on serum potassium.

Previous studies have supported the association between lower serum potassium concentration and better outcomes in carcinoma, and more hypokalemia could be observed in targeted therapy. A Swedish perspective prostate cancer study, conducted with 11,492 participants, claimed that a weak positive association was observed between higher pre-diagnostic serum potassium (>5 mEq/L) and overall death (56). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of panitumumab (Vectibix) for first-line use in metastatic colorectal cancer found that all grades of hypokalemia were observed with a 34% incidence rate and grades 3–5 with approximately 10% incidence rate. However, the incidence rates of hypokalemia in the non-panitumumab group were 14% and 4% for all grades and grades 3–5, respectively (54, 57). In a meta-analysis with a total of 2,254 participants, a higher incidence of grade 3 and 4 hypokalemia was positively associated with cetuximab-based therapy for advanced cancer (55). Similarly, when compared with non-cetuximab therapy, a higher risk of grade 3 and 4 hypokalemia with an odds ratio of 1.81 (95%CI = 1.12–2.93) was observed in the cetuximab arm (55). These studies, combined with our analysis, support a low serum potassium level as possibly beneficial for cancer patients in targeted therapy. Future studies are warranted to focus on how to maintain lower serum potassium levels to achieve better clinical outcomes.

However, hypokalemia, as an adverse event in cancer therapy, should be given sufficient attention for safety. Fluid and electrolyte imbalances were thought to be associated with increased mortality among hospitalized critically ill patients (56). In hospitalized cancer patients, hypokalemia is a common and important phenomenon, which may cause serious consequences such as cardiac arrhythmias and/or respiratory arrest. For outpatients, whose serum potassium levels were monitored even less closely than those of hospitalized ones, hypokalemia is also a dangerous adverse event (12, 55). Thus, monitoring of the serum potassium level in targeted therapy, even in cancer therapy, should be emphasized in this setting (13). Timely correction of modifiable clinical factors and management of electrolytes should not be ignored during the overall regimen period (58). The management of hypokalemia is based on strategies minimizing persistent losses and replacing serum potassium (54). Some research studies have revealed that the cause of hypokalemia is the compensation of serum magnesium deficiency (55, 59). Brief clinical check of blood magnesium ion concentrations is always warranted (60). Potassium replacement of a large amount should be gradually carried out, avoiding rebound hyperkalemia, until the clinical status of the cancer patient remains stable (54, 60). Thus, it is worth exploring how to keep a trade-off serum potassium level for both treatment effect and safety consideration to optimize prognosis.

Some limitations of our research are worth considering. Firstly, as a meta-analysis, the results were affected by the quality of each clinical trial. These included trials had different populations, follow-up durations, with or without chemotherapies, and different EGFR antagonists. The usage frequency of targeted therapy also varied among the trials, and some drugs were even only involved in a single clinical trial, e.g., “poziotinib”. Thus, detailed subgroup analysis for each anti-EGFR therapy was not possible. Moreover, only ORR and DCR were considered as the efficacy outcomes with different hypokalemia incidence levels, while time-to-event outcomes, such as overall survival and progression-free survival, are more important efficacy indexes in cancer therapy. Finally, it is impossible to obtain individual data for more detailed analysis to control for potential confounders.

In conclusion, our analysis has shown that the efficacy of anti-EGFR targeted therapy was associated with the incidence rate of hypokalemia. Compared with a hypokalemia incidence of 0%–5%, higher ORR and DCR could be observed with a hypokalemia incidence rate greater than 5%. Close monitoring and timely management of electrolytes should be emphasized in a carcinoma regimen, especially in targeted treatment. Different treatment effects should be considered for different serum potassium strata in future clinical trials with anti-EGFR therapy.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material . Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author Contributions

YZ, DY, TL, and JB were responsible for concept and design. JZ, YY, and XC acquired, analyzed, interpreted the data. JZ, YY, XC, and DY drafted the manuscript. YZ, JB, and DY critically revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.757456/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: Sources, Methods and Major Patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer (2015) 136(5):E359–86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Organization WH . Cancer. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer2021 (Accessed June 15, 2021).
  • 3. Yuan M, Huang LL, Chen JH, Wu J, Xu Q. The Emerging Treatment Landscape of Targeted Therapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Signal Transduct Target Ther (2019) 4:61. doi: 10.1038/s41392-019-0099-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Ciardiello F, Tortora G. EGFR Antagonists in Cancer Treatment. N Engl J Med (2008) 358(11):1160–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0707704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Singh D, Attri BK, Gill RK, Bariwal J. Review on EGFR Inhibitors: Critical Updates. Mini Rev Med Chem (2016) 16(14):1134–66. doi: 10.2174/1389557516666160321114917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Liu Q, Yu S, Zhao W, Qin S, Chu Q, Wu K. EGFR-TKIs Resistance via EGFR-Independent Signaling Pathways. Mol Cancer (2018) 17(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12943-018-0793-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Dancey J, Sausville EA. Issues and Progress With Protein Kinase Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2003) 2(4):296–313. doi: 10.1038/nrd1066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wang C, Zhang R, Wei X, Lv M, Jiang Z. Metalloimmunology: The Metal Ion-Controlled Immunity. Adv Immunol (2020) 145:187–241. doi: 10.1016/bs.ai.2019.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Vodnala SK, Eil R, Kishton RJ, Sukumar M, Yamamoto TN, Ha NH, et al. T Cell Stemness and Dysfunction in Tumors Are Triggered by a Common Mechanism. Science (2019) 363(6434):eaau0135. doi: 10.1126/science.aau0135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Baixauli F, Villa M, Pearce EL. Potassium Shapes Antitumor Immunity. Science (2019) 363(6434):1395–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw8800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Falk RS, Heir T, Robsahm TE, Tretli S, Sandvik L, Erikssen JE, et al. Fasting Serum Levels of Potassium and Sodium in Relation to Long-Term Risk of Cancer in Healthy Men. Clin Epidemiol (2020) 12:1–8. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S216438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Lin SH, Halperin ML. Hypokalemia: A Practical Approach to Diagnosis and Its Genetic Basis. Curr Med Chem (2007) 14(14):1551–65. doi: 10.2174/092986707780831050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Cantini L, Merloni F, Rinaldi S, Lenci E, Marcantognini G, Meletani T, et al. Electrolyte Disorders in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Immune Check-Point Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol (2020) 151:102974. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials: Is Blinding Necessary? Control Clin Trials (1996) 17(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ (2003) 327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Niho S, Kubota K, Goto K, Yoh K, Ohmatsu H, Kakinuma R, et al. First-Line Single Agent Treatment With Gefitinib in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Study. J Clin Oncol (2006) 24(1):64–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.5825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Jackman DM, Yeap BY, Lindeman NI, Fidias P, Rabin MS, Temel J, et al. Phase II Clinical Trial of Chemotherapy-Naive Patients > or = 70 Years of Age Treated With Erlotinib for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol (2007) 25(7):760–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.5754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Belani CP, Schreeder MT, Steis RG, Guidice RA, Marsland TA, Butler EH, et al. Cetuximab in Combination With Carboplatin and Docetaxel for Patients With Metastatic or Advanced-Stage Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Phase 2 Study. Cancer (2008) 113(9):2512–7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Crino L, Cappuzzo F, Zatloukal P, Reck M, Pesek M, Thompson JC, et al. Gefitinib Versus Vinorelbine in Chemotherapy-Naive Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (INVITE): A Randomized, Phase II Study. J Clin Oncol (2008) 26(26):4253–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Lynch TJ, Fenton D, Hirsh V, Bodkin D, Middleman EL, Chiappori A, et al. A Randomized Phase 2 Study of Erlotinib Alone and in Combination With Bortezomib in Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol (2009) 4(8):1002–9. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181aba89f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Pirker R, Pereira JR, Szczesna A, von Pawel J, Krzakowski M, Ramlau R, et al. Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (FLEX): An Open-Label Randomised Phase III Trial. Lancet (2009) 373(9674):1525–31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60569-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Govindan R, Bogart J, Stinchcombe T, Wang X, Hodgson L, Kratzke R, et al. Randomized Phase II Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin, and Thoracic Radiation With or Without Cetuximab in Patients With Locally Advanced Unresectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 30407. J Clin Oncol (2011) 29(23):3120–5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.4979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Ahn MJ, Yang JC, Liang J, Kang JH, Xiu Q, Chen YM, et al. Randomized Phase II Trial of First-Line Treatment With Pemetrexed-Cisplatin, Followed Sequentially by Gefitinib or Pemetrexed, in East Asian, Never-Smoker Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer (2012) 77(2):346–52. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Blumenschein GR, Jr., Ciuleanu T, Robert F, Groen HJ, Usari T, Ruiz-Garcia A, et al. Sunitinib Plus Erlotinib for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Lead-in Study. J Thorac Oncol (2012) 7(9):1406–16. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31825cca1c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Miller VA, Hirsh V, Cadranel J, Chen YM, Park K, Kim SW, et al. Afatinib Versus Placebo for Patients With Advanced, Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of Erlotinib, Gefitinib, or Both, and One or Two Lines of Chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): A Phase 2b/3 Randomised Trial. Lancet Oncol (2012) 13(5):528–38. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70087-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Scagliotti GV, Krzakowski M, Szczesna A, Strausz J, Makhson A, Reck M, et al. Sunitinib Plus Erlotinib Versus Placebo Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol (2012) 30(17):2070–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.2993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Belani CP, Nemunaitis JJ, Chachoua A, Eisenberg PD, Raez LE, Cuevas JD, et al. Phase 2 Trial of Erlotinib With or Without PF-3512676 (CPG 7909, A Toll-Like Receptor 9 Agonist) in Patients With Advanced Recurrent EGFR-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Biol Ther (2013) 14(7):557–63. doi: 10.4161/cbt.24598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Kim ES, Moon J, Herbst RS, Redman MW, Dakhil SR, Velasco MR, Jr., et al. Phase II Trial of Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, Cetuximab, and Bevacizumab Followed by Cetuximab and Bevacizumab in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: SWOG S0536. J Thorac Oncol (2013) 8(12):1519–28. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Kim ES, Neubauer M, Cohn A, Schwartzberg L, Garbo L, Caton J, et al. Docetaxel or Pemetrexed With or Without Cetuximab in Recurrent or Progressive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Platinum-Based Therapy: A Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomised Trial. Lancet Oncol (2013) 14(13):1326–36. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70473-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Ellis PM, Shepherd FA, Millward M, Perrone F, Seymour L, Liu G, et al. Dacomitinib Compared With Placebo in Pretreated Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NCIC CTG BR.26): A Double-Blind, Randomised, Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(12):1379–88. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70472-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Janne PA, Ou SI, Kim DW, Oxnard GR, Martins R, Kris MG, et al. Dacomitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Clinically or Molecularly Selected Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(13):1433–41. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70461-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP, Feng J, Lu S, Huang Y, et al. Afatinib Versus Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine for First-Line Treatment of Asian Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harbouring EGFR Mutations (LUX-Lung 6): An Open-Label, Randomised Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(2):213–22. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70604-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Han JY, Lee SH, Lee GK, Yun T, Lee YJ, Hwang KH, et al. Phase I/II Study of Gefitinib (Iressa((R))) and Vorinostat (IVORI) in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2015) 75(3):475–83. doi: 10.1007/s00280-014-2664-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Heigener DF, Pereira JR, Felip E, Mazal J, Manzyuk L, Tan EH, et al. Weekly and Every 2 Weeks Cetuximab Maintenance Therapy After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy Plus Cetuximab as First-Line Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Non-Comparative Phase IIIb NEXT Trial. Target Oncol (2015) 10(2):255–65. doi: 10.1007/s11523-014-0336-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Lara PN, Jr., Longmate J, Mack PC, Kelly K, Socinski MA, Salgia R, et al. Phase II Study of the AKT Inhibitor MK-2206 Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Previously Progressed on Erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(19):4321–6. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Lee DH, Lee JS, Wang J, Hsia TC, Wang X, Kim J, et al. Pemetrexed-Erlotinib, Pemetrexed Alone, or Erlotinib Alone as Second-Line Treatment for East Asian and Non-East Asian Never-Smokers With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of a Phase II Trial. Cancer Res Treat (2015) 47(4):616–29. doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Liu D, Shen YX, Zhao WX, Jiang GL, Chen JY, Fan M. Feasibility of Cetuximab and Chemoradiotherapy Combination in Chinese Patients With Unresectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Preliminary Report. Chin J Cancer Res (2015) 27(2):172–80. doi:  10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2014.11.05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Wu YL, Zhou C, Liam CK, Wu G, Liu X, Zhong Z, et al. First-Line Erlotinib Versus Gemcitabine/Cisplatin in Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Analyses From the Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, ENSURE Study. Ann Oncol (2015) 26(9):1883–9. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Lee VH, Leung DK, Choy TS, Lam KO, Lam PM, Leung TW, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib in Chinese Patients With EGFR-Mutated Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Previously Responsive to First-Generation Tyrosine-Kinase Inhibitors (TKI) and Chemotherapy: Comparison With Historical Cohort Using Erlotinib. BMC Cancer (2016) 16:147. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2201-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Park K, Tan EH, O’Byrne K, Zhang L, Boyer M, Mok T, et al. Afatinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (LUX-Lung 7): A Phase 2B, Open-Label, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol (2016) 17(5):577–89. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30033-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Han JY, Lee KH, Kim SW, Min YJ, Cho E, Lee Y, et al. A Phase II Study of Poziotinib in Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma Who Have Acquired Resistance to EGFR-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors. Cancer Res Treat (2017) 49(1):10–9. doi: 10.4143/crt.2016.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Spigel DR, Mekhail TM, Waterhouse D, Hadley T, Webb C, Burris HA, 3rd, et al. First-Line Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Panitumumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Squamous KRAS Wild Type (WT) Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Cancer Invest (2017) 35(8):541–6. doi: 10.1080/07357907.2017.1344698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Spigel DR, Rubin MS, Gian VG, Shipley DL, Burris HA, 3rd, Kosloff RA, et al. Sorafenib and Continued Erlotinib or Sorafenib Alone in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Progressing on Erlotinib: A Randomized Phase II Study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI). Lung Cancer (2017) 113:79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Thomas M, Sadjadian P, Kollmeier J, Lowe J, Mattson P, Trout JR, et al. A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of BTH1677 (1,3-1,6 Beta Glucan; Imprime PGG) in Combination With Cetuximab and Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Invest New Drugs (2017) 35(3):345–58. doi: 10.1007/s10637-017-0450-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Wakelee HA, Gettinger S, Engelman J, Janne PA, West H, Subramaniam DS, et al. A Phase Ib/II Study of Cabozantinib (XL184) With or Without Erlotinib in Patients With non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2017) 79(5):923–32. doi: 10.1007/s00280-017-3283-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Wu YL, Cheng Y, Zhou X, Lee KH, Nakagawa K, Niho S, et al. Dacomitinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ARCHER 1050): A Randomised, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2017) 18(11):1454–66. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30608-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Hata A, Katakami N, Kaji R, Yokoyama T, Kaneda T, Tamiya M, et al. Afatinib Plus Bevacizumab Combination After Acquired Resistance to EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase 2 Trial (ABC Study). Cancer (2018) 124(19):3830–8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Herbst RS, Redman MW, Kim ES, Semrad TJ, Bazhenova L, Masters G, et al. Cetuximab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab in Advanced NSCLC (SWOG S0819): A Randomised, Phase 3 Study. Lancet Oncol (2018) 19(1):101–14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30694-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Lu S, Li W, Zhou C, Hu CP, Qin S, Cheng G, et al. Afatinib vs Erlotinib for Second-Line Treatment of Chinese Patients With Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung. Onco Targets Ther (2018) 11:8565–73. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S161506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Oda N, Hotta K, Ninomiya K, Minami D, Ichihara E, Murakami T, et al. A Phase II Trial of EGFR-TKI Readministration With Afatinib in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring a Sensitive Non-T790M EGFR Mutation: Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 1403. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2018) 82(6):1031–8. doi: 10.1007/s00280-018-3694-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Reckamp KL, Frankel PH, Ruel N, Mack PC, Gitlitz BJ, Li T, et al. Phase II Trial of Cabozantinib Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Progressive Disease on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy: A California Cancer Consortium Phase II Trial (NCI 9303). Front Oncol (2019) 9:132. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Gurusamy D, Clever D, Eil R, Restifo NP. Novel “Elements” of Immune Suppression Within the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Immunol Res (2017) 5(6):426–33. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Eil R, Vodnala SK, Clever D, Klebanoff CA, Sukumar M, Pan JH, et al. Ionic Immune Suppression Within the Tumour Microenvironment Limits T Cell Effector Function. Nature (2016) 537(7621):539–43. doi: 10.1038/nature19364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Abbas A, Mirza MM, Ganti AK, Tendulkar K. Renal Toxicities of Targeted Therapies. Target Oncol (2015) 10(4):487–99. doi: 10.1007/s11523-015-0368-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Cao Y, Liu L, Liao C, Tan A, Gao F. Meta-Analysis of Incidence and Risk of Hypokalemia With Cetuximab-Based Therapy for Advanced Cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2010) 66(1):37–42. doi: 10.1007/s00280-009-1131-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ghoshal A, Garmo H, Hammar N, Jungner I, Malmstrom H, Walldius G, et al. Can Pre-Diagnostic Serum Levels of Sodium and Potassium Predict Prostate Cancer Survival? BMC Cancer (2018) 18(1):1169. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-5098-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Giusti RM, Cohen MH, Keegan P, Pazdur R. FDA Review of a Panitumumab (Vectibix) Clinical Trial for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Oncologist (2009) 14(3):284–90. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Li Y, Chen X, Shen Z, Wang Y, Hu J, Xu J, et al. Electrolyte and Acid-Base Disorders in Cancer Patients and its Impact on Clinical Outcomes: Evidence From a Real-World Study in China. Ren Fail (2020) 42(1):234–43. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2020.1735417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Whang R, Welt LG. Observations in Experimental Magnesium Depletion. J Clin Invest (1963) 42:305–13. doi: 10.1172/JCI104717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Unwin RJ, Luft FC, Shirley DG. Pathophysiology and Management of Hypokalemia: A Clinical Perspective. Nat Rev Nephrol (2011) 7(2):75–84. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2010.175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material . Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.


Articles from Frontiers in Oncology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES