Literature DB >> 32494193

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Related Hepatotoxicity in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Retrospective Study.

Jie Qian1,2, Xueyan Zhang2, Bo Zhang2, Bo Yan2, Lin Wang3, Ping Gu2, Weimin Wang2, Huimin Wang2, Baohui Han2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hepatic injury is a common side effect following tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy and our understanding usually comes from clinical trials. In this retrospective study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics, risk factors and regimen-related differences of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-TKI-related hepatic toxicity in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma (LAD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Liver function tests were documented in 424 patients admitted into the Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 2014 and December 2016 with advanced (IIIB/IV) LAD who received first-line gefitinib, erlotinib or icotinib. Hepatotoxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. The clinical spectrum and onset time of hepatic injury were evaluated. The risk factors of hepatic dysfunction were determined using a logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 87 (20.5%) patients experienced hepatotoxicity and 5.7% were of grade 3/4 liver dysfunction. The median onset time of hepatotoxicity was 7 weeks. Presence of hepatitis virus (HR: 2.593, 95% CI: 1.090-6.170, P=0.031) and pretreatment liver impairment (HR: 3.460, 95% CI: 1.746-6.855, P<0.001) were risk factors associated with increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Gefitinib (HR: 1.872, 95% CI: 1.028-3.412, P=0.040) and erlotinib (HR: 3.578, 95% CI: 1.683-7.609, P=0.001) had increased risk of hepatotoxicity compared to icotinib.
CONCLUSION: The different toxic profile of EGFR-TKIs should be taken into account in the choice of treatment based on the patients' comorbidity.
© 2020 Qian et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  erlotinib; gefitinib; hepatotoxicity; icotinib; lung adenocarcinoma; tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Year:  2020        PMID: 32494193      PMCID: PMC7227784          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S237968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Lung adenocarcinoma (LAD) accounts for the majority of lung cancer which is one of the leading causes of cancer-associated mortality worldwide.1 The development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) dramatically improves the prognosis of LAD patients harboring EGFR sensitive mutations. However, TKI-related liver injury is commonly seen.2 It took place in 12–70% of patients depending on different treatment and study populations.3–7 While mild hepatotoxicity usually diminished with prompt intervention, severe liver dysfunction may result in treatment delay or suspension. The current understanding of EGFR-TKI-related hepatotoxicity, however, mostly comes from clinical trials with stringent selection criteria. The real-world safety properties, the risk factors and agent-related difference of hepatotoxicity have not been largely studied. In this retrospective study, we reviewed records of patients receiving gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib as the first-line treatment for advanced LAD. Characteristics, risk factors and regimen-related differences of hepatotoxicity were investigated for a deeper understanding of TKI-related hepatotoxicity.

Patients and Methods

Patients

Medical history of all patients admitted into the Shanghai Chest Hospital, China between January 2014 and December 2016 were reviewed. The inclusion criteria for this study were: 1) age greater than 18 years; 2) pathologically confirmed as LAD; 3) advanced stage (IIIB or IV); 4) EGFR mutated and receiving first-line TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, or icotinib) with complete laboratory data. 5) observation time after TKI initiation ≥2 months. Patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy with TKIs were excluded. The enrollment process was carried out on consecutive patients and included all patients meeting the criteria. Among total of 2704 newly diagnosed stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma patients who were admitted into the hospital during the period, 593 EGFR mutated patients received fist-line TKIs. A total of 424 patients were included in the final analysis after excluding those with incomplete laboratory data (n=62), TKIs other than gefitinib, erlotinib or icotinib (n=41), TKIs administration <2 months (n=52) and concurrent therapy (n=14). The study was approved by the hospital’s ethic committee and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and the analysis used anonymous clinical data.

Data Collection

Baseline characteristics including age, sex, smoking history, drinking history, stage, Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance score (PS), pretreatment liver function, whether or not having liver metastases was recorded. Hepatitis B and C virus serology were performed for all patients at the baseline visit. Patients with positive hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis C virus antibody (HCV-Ab) were recorded. Drinking for a minimum of 6 months with an alcohol consumption >50 g/day was defined as having a drinking history.

Laboratory and Hepatotoxicity Assessment

Liver function was examined at baseline visit, at least biweekly for the first 2 months after TKIs therapy and every 1–2 months afterwards. Parameters including aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and total bilirubin (TBil) were examined and results were reported as ULN values. Hepatotoxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. The onset time of hepatotoxicity was defined as the interval from the date of starting TKIs to the time of hepatotoxicity detected. Duration of hepatotoxicity was defined as the interval between the detection of abnormal liver function and the time liver function returned to normal.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics were quantified by applying descriptive statistics. The association between variables and hepatic dysfunction during treatment were evaluated using a logistic regression analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 424 patients receiving EGFR-TKI were included. The overall study population was 185 (43.6%) male, with a median (IQR) age of 60 (53–67) years. Most patients (78.8%) were in stage IV. Patients with ECOG PS 2 accounted for 9.4%. The number of patients with pretreatment liver impairment was 45 (10.6%). A total of 25 patients showed the presence of hepatitis virus, among whom 23 had positive HBsAg, 1 had positive HCV-Ab and 1 had both positive HBsAg and HCV-Ab. Patients’ clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics

VariableAll Patients (n=424), n (%)
Age, median (IQR)60 (53–67)
Age
 <70 years355 (83.7%)
 ≥70 years69 (16.3%)
Gender
 Male185 (43.6%)
 Female239 (56.4%)
Smoking Status
 Never313 (73.8%)
 Ever111 (26.2%)
Drinking History
 No416 (98.1%)
 Yes8 (1.9%)
HBsAg or HCV-Ab
 Absent399 (94.1%)
 Present25 (5.9%)
Pretreatment Liver Impairment
 No379 (89.4%)
 Yes45 (10.6%)
ECOG PS
 0~1384 (90.6%)
 240 (9.4%)
Stage
 IIIB39 (9.2%)
 IV334 (78.8%)
 Recurrent51 (12.0%)
Liver Metastasis
 No405 (95.5%)
 Yes19 (4.5%)
TKI Regimen
 Gefitinib215 (50.7%)
 Erlotinib57 (13.4%)
 Icotinib152 (35.9%)

Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HCV-Ab, hepatitis C virus antibody; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HCV-Ab, hepatitis C virus antibody; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

The Frequency, Mode, Onset and Duration Time of Hepatotoxicity

A total of 87 (20.5%) patients experienced hepatotoxicity after TKI administration. Mild liver dysfunction (grade 1/2) accounted for the majority (n=82, 94.3%) while 5 (5.7%) patients were diagnosed with ≥ grade 3 hepatotoxicity. The majority of hepatic toxicity were presented as an elevation of ALT/AST and a small proportion had increased TBil levels (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Characteristics of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving first-line EGFR-TKIs.

Characteristics of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving first-line EGFR-TKIs. The median (IQR) onset time of hepatotoxicity was 7 (4–10) weeks with a range from 1 to 96 weeks. For patients with severe hepatotoxicity (≥ grade 3), the median duration of liver dysfunction was 6 weeks (range: 4–15 weeks) (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Onset time of EGFR-TKI-induced hepatotoxicity.

Onset time of EGFR-TKI-induced hepatotoxicity.

Risk Factors for Hepatotoxicity and Different Profiles Among TKIs

The multivariate analysis showed that presence of hepatitis virus (HR: 2.593, 95% CI: 1.090–6.170, P=0.031) and pretreatment liver impairment (HR: 3.460, 95% CI: 1.746–6.855, P<0.001) were two risk factors associated with increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Age, gender, smoking and drinking history, ECOG PS, stage and the presence of liver metastasis were not significantly associated with the occurrence of liver injury (Table 2).
Table 2

Logistic Regression Analysis for Hepatic Toxicity in Patients Undergoing First-Line EGFR-TKI Treatment

VariableLiver Dysfunction, No. (%)Univariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
NoYesOdds Ratio (95% CI)POdds Ratio (95% CI)P
Age
 <70 years281 (83.4)74 (85.1)ReferenceReference
 ≥70 years56 (16.6)13 (14.9)0.882 (0.458–1.698)0.7060.986 (0.425–2.284)0.973
Gender
 Male147 (43.6)38 (43.7)ReferenceReference
 Female190 (56.4)49 (56.3)0.998 (0.620–1.605)0.9921.515 (0.736–3.119)0.260
Smoking Status
 Never252 (74.8)61 (70.1)ReferenceReference
 Ever85 (25.2)26 (29.9)1.264 (0.751–2.127)0.3781.600 (0.719–3.563)0.250
Drinking History
 No331 (98.2)85 (97.7)ReferenceReference
 Yes6 (1.8)2 (2.3)1.298 (0.257–6.546)0.7520.843 (0.150–4.729)0.846
HBsAg or HCV-Ab
 Absent320 (95.0)76 (87.4)ReferenceReference
 Present17 (5.0)11 (12.6)2.724 (1.226–6.055)0.0142.593 (1.090–6.170)0.031
Pretreatment Liver Impairment
 No312 (92.6)67 (77.0)ReferenceReference
 Yes25 (7.4)20 (23.0)3.725 (1.956–7.097)0.0003.460 (1.746–6.855)<0.001
ECOG PS
 0~1304 (90.2)80 (92.0)ReferenceReference
 233 (9.8)7 (8.0)0.806 (0.344–1.890)0.6200.881 (0.296–2.619)0.820
Stage0.1480.145
 IIIB29 (8.6)10 (11.5)ReferenceReference
 IV272 (80.7)62 (71.3)0.661(0.306–1.427)0.2920.657 (0.289–1.492)0.315
Recurrent36 (10.7)15 (17.2)1.208(0.473–3.086)0.6921.268 (0.467–3.443)0.641
Liver Metastasis
 No324 (96.1)81 (93.1)ReferenceReference
 Yes13 (3.9)6 (6.9)1.846 (0.681–5.006)0.2282.397 (0.829–6.932)0.107

Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HCV-Ab, hepatitis C virus antibody; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

Logistic Regression Analysis for Hepatic Toxicity in Patients Undergoing First-Line EGFR-TKI Treatment Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HCV-Ab, hepatitis C virus antibody; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

Regimen-Related Differences of Hepatotoxicity

The difference in hepatotoxicity among gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib was compared through multivariate regression analysis by incorporating all other clinical characteristics. The results showed that there was no significant difference in hepatotoxicity between gefitinib and erlotinib (HR: 1.693, 95% CI: 0.874–3.285, P=0.119). However, both gefitinib (HR: 1.872, 95% CI: 1.028–3.412, P=0.040) and erlotinib (HR: 3.578, 95% CI: 1.683–7.609, P=0.001) produced more events of hepatotoxicity compared to icotinib (Table 3)
Table 3

Multivariate Logistic Analysis Comparing Hepatotoxicity Among Different EGFR-TKI Agent

VariableLiver Dysfunction, No. (%)Multivariable Analysis
NoYesOdds Ratio (95% CI)P
Icotinib131 (38.9)19 (21.8)
Gefitinib167 (49.6)50 (57.5)
Erlotinib39 (11.6)18 (20.7)
Erlotinib vs Gefitinib1.693 (0.874–3.285)0.119
Gefitinib vs Icotinib1.872 (1.028–3.412)0.040
Erlotinib vs Icotinib3.578 (1.683–7.609)0.001
Multivariate Logistic Analysis Comparing Hepatotoxicity Among Different EGFR-TKI Agent

Discussion

The current study investigated the nature, the risk factors and regimen-related differences for hepatic toxicity in advanced LAD patients receiving first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. Our findings confirmed that most hepatotoxic events were mild and occurred within the first 2 months. Patients with pretreatment liver impairment and the presence of the hepatitis virus were more susceptible to liver impairment. A Chinese homegrown EGFR-TKI-icotinib seemed to be superior to gefitinib or erlotinib when the liver issue was concerned. EGFR-TKI-induced liver injury is commonly seen clinically. Single clinical trials on lung cancer reported a variable incidence ranging from 12% to 70%, with 1–18% of cases presenting with ≥3 grade hepatotoxicity.3–7 The heterogeneity of the studied population may explain the various incidences of liver dysfunction in trials. In this retrospective study, we evaluated all patients including who would normally be excluded in the clinical trials. Despite scant real-world evidence of TKI-induced hepatotoxicity, a latest meta-analysis incorporating 43 studies claimed an overall incidence of 20% for all grade hepatotoxic events, which were in consistent with our results.8 Our findings demonstrated that hepatic toxicity related to EGFR-TKIs is well tolerable. A small proportion of patients developed severe hepatic events were discontinued with EGFR-TKI and retreated with decreased dose or switched to other types of EGFR-TKI after hepatoprotective treatment. All patients recovered after the prompt intervention. Concerning the treatment outcome of this specific subgroup, current evidence suggests that TKI-induced hepatoxicity is not an on-target effect linked to its efficacy.9 A previous study based on a few cases of EGFR-TKI induced hepatotoxicity revealed that the approximate median progression-free survival (PFS) was 281 (range: 206–527) days which was consistent with the PFS results of first-generation EGFR-TKI in clinical trials on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).10 Toxicity profiles are different for EGFR-TKIs harboring unique chemical structures. Although there have been no prospective trials comparing toxicity among different first-line EGFR-TKIs, a meta-analysis and a pooled analysis revealed that gefitinib was associated with significantly higher risks of elevated liver enzymes than erlotinib.7,11 However, another network meta-analysis did not demonstrate the similar results.8 By adjusting for potential affecting covariance, we confirmed that gefitinib and erlotinib did not differ in hepatic toxicity. Icotinib is the first homegrown EGFR-TKI approved by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for the treatment of NSCLC. Because of its shorter half-life and a wider therapeutic window, icotinib has decreased the risk of drug-related adverse events compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.12–14 The percentage of icotinib-related elevated ALT/AST events was 6.8–8.1% in the Phase III trial15 and only 3.8% based on a meta-analysis including 15 studies of NSCLC populations. Similar results were found in this study that icotinib-related abnormal liver function appeared in 12.7% of patients, significantly less than that of gefitinib or erlotinib. Despite its structural superiority, distinctive metabolite characteristics of icotinib, especially the effect of metabolites M20 and M23 on liver toxic reactions, partly explain the lower risk of liver impairment.16 The onset of hepatic toxicity induced by TKIs is usually within the first 2 months of initiating treatment but may vary depending on the discrete spectrum of clinical characteristics and diseases.9 In this study, the median onset time of hepatotoxicity was 7 weeks, implying that a stringent monitoring of hepatic function should be performed within the first 2 months after TKI therapy. However, there was still a small proportion (n=9, 10.3%) of patients developed liver dysfunction after half a year since the initiation of TKI, reminding us that a long observation of TKI-induced side effect is necessary although all these patients were of mild grade hepatotoxicity. The mechanism underlying EGFR-TKI-induced hepatotoxicity has not yet been well clarified.17 Much of the available histological information suggested that hepatocellular necrosis was accounted for the most frequent form of TKI-induced liver injury.9 Our findings confirmed that increased amino-transferases were the most-seen pattern of liver injury. Approximately 10% of patients experienced elevated TBil, indicating a possibility of bile duct epithelial injury and cholestasis. Pre-existing diseases such as viral infection or prior liver damage are related to hepatic toxicity arising during TKI therapy.18,19 Although TKIs are not generally associated with hepatitis reactivation, HBV reactivation after the use of small-molecule TKIs has been reported previously.20 In this study, hepatitis reactivation was not observed. However, treatment with antiviral agents could be considered in consultation with specialists in hepatology. There are several limitations to our study. First, concomitant treatment such as herbal medicine that may affect liver function was not included in the analysis. Previous studies demonstrated that polypharmacy might cloud the picture of hepatotoxicity.21 Second, for patients with hepatitis virus infection, we were unable to consider patients with concurrent virus copy test with the intent to describe more dangerous conditions. In addition, we did not separately study the risk of hepatitis B and C because of the limited sample size of hepatitis C infection. Third, the current study had a limited sample size of patients developing hepatic injury; we, therefore, did not separately analyze those with more severe hepatotoxicity (≥ grade 2) that may provide more clinical significance since grade 1 hepatic injury was not generally considered to be significant in clinical practice. In conclusion, first-generation EGFR-TKI-related hepatic events are well-tolerable. The different toxic profile of EGFR-TKIs should be taken into account in the choice of treatment based on the patients’ comorbidity and drug availability.
  21 in total

1.  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.

Authors:  Y-L Wu; C Zhou; C-K Liam; G Wu; X Liu; Z Zhong; S Lu; Y Cheng; B Han; L Chen; C Huang; S Qin; Y Zhu; H Pan; H Liang; E Li; G Jiang; S H How; M C L Fernando; Y Zhang; F Xia; Y Zuo
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  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.

Authors:  Keunchil Park; Eng-Huat Tan; Ken O'Byrne; Li Zhang; Michael Boyer; Tony Mok; Vera Hirsh; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Ki Hyeong Lee; Shun Lu; Yuankai Shi; Sang-We Kim; Janessa Laskin; Dong-Wan Kim; Catherine Dubos Arvis; Karl Kölbeck; Scott A Laurie; Chun-Ming Tsai; Mehdi Shahidi; Miyoung Kim; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Luis Paz-Ares
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Reactivation of hepatitis B virus after withdrawal of erlotinib.

Authors:  N Bui; I Wong-Sefidan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Hepatotoxicity of tyrosine kinase inhibitors: clinical and regulatory perspectives.

Authors:  Rashmi R Shah; Joel Morganroth; Devron R Shah
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Pooled safety analysis of EGFR-TKI treatment for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Masayuki Takeda; Isamu Okamoto; Kazuhiko Nakagawa
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  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.

Authors:  Yi-Long Wu; Caicun Zhou; Cheng-Ping Hu; Jifeng Feng; Shun Lu; Yunchao Huang; Wei Li; Mei Hou; Jian Hua Shi; Kye Young Lee; Chong-Rui Xu; Dan Massey; Miyoung Kim; Yang Shi; Sarayut L Geater
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Therapeutic effects and adverse drug reactions are affected by icotinib exposure and CYP2C19 and EGFR genotypes in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Jia Chen; Xin Zheng; Dong-Yang Liu; Qian Zhao; Yi-Wen Wu; Fen-Lai Tan; Yin-Xiang Wang; Ji Jiang; Pei Hu
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2014

8.  Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Yuankai Shi; Li Zhang; Xiaoqing Liu; Caicun Zhou; Li Zhang; Shucai Zhang; Dong Wang; Qiang Li; Shukui Qin; Chunhong Hu; Yiping Zhang; Jianhua Chen; Ying Cheng; Jifeng Feng; Helong Zhang; Yong Song; Yi-Long Wu; Nong Xu; Jianying Zhou; Rongcheng Luo; Chunxue Bai; Yening Jin; Wenchao Liu; Zhaohui Wei; Fenlai Tan; Yinxiang Wang; Lieming Ding; Hong Dai; Shunchang Jiao; Jie Wang; Li Liang; Weimin Zhang; Yan Sun
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Erlotinib following Gefitinib-Induced Hepatotoxicity: Review of 8 Clinical Cases.

Authors:  Yukihiro Yano; Yoshinobu Namba; Masahide Mori; Yukie Nakazawa; Ayumi Nashi; Shinichi Kagami; Manabu Niinaka; Tsutomu Yoneda; Hiromi Kimura; Toshihiko Yamaguchi; Soichiro Yokota
Journal:  Lung Cancer Int       Date:  2012-11-08

10.  Hepatocellular Toxicity Associated with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Mitochondrial Damage and Inhibition of Glycolysis.

Authors:  Franziska Paech; Jamal Bouitbir; Stephan Krähenbühl
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 5.810

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of Epidermal Growth Factor Treatment and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Exposure in a Dietary-Exposure Mouse Model of Steatohepatitis.

Authors:  Josiah E Hardesty; Banrida Wahlang; Russell A Prough; Kim Z Head; Daniel Wilkey; Michael Merchant; Hongxue Shi; Jian Jin; Matthew C Cave
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 2.  A Review of Cancer Immunotherapy Toxicity II: Adoptive Cellular Therapies, Kinase Inhibitors, Monoclonal Antibodies, and Oncolytic Viruses.

Authors:  Neeraj Chhabra; Joseph Kennedy
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2021-04-05

3.  A Risk Scoring System Utilizing Machine Learning Methods for Hepatotoxicity Prediction One Year After the Initiation of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Authors:  Ji Min Han; Jeong Yee; Soyeon Cho; Min Kyoung Kim; Jin Young Moon; Dasom Jung; Jung Sun Kim; Hye Sun Gwak
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 6.244

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.