Temsirolimus
Torisel · mTOR inhibitor
Proteinuria and glomerular effects; less firmly quantified than everolimus.
Afinitor · EVE
mTOR inhibitor · approved 2009 · 12 citations · FAERS AKI reporting ROR 1.93 (95% CI 1.79–2.08, 702 AKI reports)
Describes how this page is sourced, not how dangerous the drug is. Thinly sourced means fewer of the sourcing signals are met — not that the agent is kidney-safe. A rule-based summary, not a formal certainty appraisal.
The oral rapalog whose podocytes pay in protein — glomerular proteinuria and secondary FSGS, with occasional thrombotic microangiopathy.
Signature lesion
Proteinuria is a class effect of mTOR inhibitors, and with systematic monitoring it is close to universal. A retrospective review of 129 first-line metastatic renal-cell patients found any-grade proteinuria in 81% overall and in 96% of the everolimus arm (44 patients) — the highest of the three regimens compared, against 80% on pazopanib and 64% on bevacizumab. Almost all of it was minor: the study's grade 3-4 proteinuria (24%, 6 patients) occurred entirely in the bevacizumab group, none in the everolimus arm, and 35 of the everolimus patients (80%) simply continued at the same dose under monitoring. So the striking number is detection, not injury — heavy proteinuria and overt podocytopathy remain uncommon, and most nephrotic-range and biopsy-proven FSGS data are still extrapolated from the sirolimus/transplant literature. A phase II trial combining everolimus with bevacizumab reported grade 3-4 proteinuria of 25%, which reflects the added anti-VEGF effect and overstates everolimus alone. Thrombotic microangiopathy is rare and drawn mainly from case reports, typically with concomitant calcineurin-inhibitor or anti-VEGF exposure.Source: Land et al., J Oncol Pharm Pract 2016 (PMID 25505255, everolimus arm 44 patients, any-grade proteinuria 96%); Hainsworth JD et al., J Clin Oncol 2010 (PMID 20368560, everolimus + bevacizumab combination figure)
Proteinuria emerges over the first weeks to months; thrombotic microangiopathy usually within weeks to months, often with concurrent calcineurin-inhibitor or anti-VEGF exposure.
Distilled from: “Subacute — proteinuria typically emerges over the first weeks to months of therapy; thrombotic microangiopathy usually appears within weeks to months, often in the setting of concurrent calcineurin-inhibitor or anti-VEGF exposure.” · PMID 18631865 (opens PubMed in a new tab)
Long-term outcome and threshold data distilled from the agent's cited literature — educational, not a substitute for the primary sources.
This agent's kidney lesions ordered by prominence — the #1 signature lesion first, then secondary and rare patterns. Cited incidence is shown where a citable figure exists; otherwise the tier stands qualitatively.
Damage to the filtration barrier — podocyte injury, FSGS and protein leak from VEGF and mTOR blockade.
Endothelial injury with microvascular thrombi, hemolysis and thrombocytopenia — gemcitabine, mitomycin C, anti-VEGF.
Renal electrolyte derangement — magnesium/potassium/calcium wasting (cisplatin, anti-EGFR antibodies) or retention (FGFR-inhibitor hyperphosphatemia, tumor-lysis hyperkalemia/hyperphosphatemia).
Tap a signature to trace where it strikes the nephron.
Glomerular Injury / Proteinuria
Damage to the filtration barrier — podocyte injury, FSGS and protein leak from VEGF and mTOR blockade.
Oral rapamycin analog (rapalog) that binds FKBP-12 to inhibit mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1), blocking downstream S6K1/4E-BP1 signaling. This arrests G1/S cell-cycle progression, suppresses protein synthesis and proliferation, and reduces HIF-1alpha-driven VEGF production, adding an anti-angiogenic effect.
Class-level context for the major non-renal toxicities of the mTOR inhibitor class.
Pulmonary
Pneumonitis, ILD, effusions, hypertension
Endocrine
Thyroiditis, hypophysitis, diabetes
Gastrointestinal
Diarrhea, colitis, mucositis, perforation
Immune / Infusion
CRS, infusion reactions, irAEs, anaphylaxis
9 primary references — trials, cohorts, mechanism, and reviews. Single-patient case reports are listed separately below, graded by strength. Citation metadata via PubMed / NLM.
Primary (non–case-report) references per year — a proxy for how actively the agent's renal literature is accruing. Recent years are highlighted. Reflects curation depth, not a systematic bibliometric count.
Single-patient and small-series reports, graded by evidentiary strength — A Strong (biopsy-proven plus a series and/or positive rechallenge), B Moderate, and C Limited (a single clinically-diagnosed case). Strongest first. Grades are inferred automatically from each report's abstract and journal — a heuristic ranking aid, not a formal quality appraisal.
Everything below is FAERS — adverse events someone chose to report, about 50,589 of them for this agent. Nobody counts the patients who were fine, so none of these numbers is an incidence, a risk, or a rate: they describe what gets reported, shaped by a drug's fame, its indication, and who was watching. How these numbers work.
Only significant signals appear (95% CI lower bound above 1) — a phenotype missing here was tested and did not reach significance, except Prerenal / Hemodynamic AKI, Pseudo-AKI, Renal Cysts, Chronic Interstitial Nephropathy — outside the clinician-reviewed MedDRA term map, never queried — and ATN and AIN, queried but biopsy-bound: real cases are filed as generic “acute kidney injury”, so their absence is not a negative. As of 2026-10-01.
What reporting says about this profile's documented lesions
Reported with a death outcome
10,868 of 50,589 reports
Reported with hospitalization
15,177 of 50,589 reports
Reports per year
Yearly FAERS report volume · most recent year is partial.
Bars rank systems by summed reaction-term mentions (a report counts once per term it names) — an ordinal “more vs less reported” cue, not a tally of distinct reports. Renal & urinary first. As of 2026-10-01.
Each recommendation below is this atlas's faithful summary of the source, not a quotation from it — follow the PubMed link for the wording the society published. Summaries may be superseded; consult the current full text and individualize to the patient.
General onco-nephrology references
Where Everolimus sits in nephrotoxicity space — each dot is an anti-cancer agent, positioned so neighbors share a kidney-injury phenotype. Its 6 closest are filled and lead to a numbered marker, matching the numbered cards below.
Torisel · mTOR inhibitor
Proteinuria and glomerular effects; less firmly quantified than everolimus.
Nexavar · VEGFR TKI
Anti-angiogenic hypertension and proteinuria; occasional TMA.
mTOR inhibitor
Podocyte injury → proteinuria and FSGS.
Votrient · VEGFR TKI
VEGFR-TKI; hypertension, proteinuria, TMA.
Inlyta · VEGFR TKI
Potent VEGFR-TKI; hypertension and proteinuria dominate.
Velcade · Proteasome inhibitor
Rare TMA; reverses myeloma cast nephropathy.
Nearest agents by kidney-injury phenotype (shared injuries, nephron target, severity, class) — a similarity approximation, not a claim of shared drug identity or mechanism.
Same-class agents ordered by their documented kidney-injury profile — atlas severity, an acute-kidney-injury FAERS signal, and how many injury types each is documented to cause. Agents nearer the top carry the lighter documented renal profile.
A comparison of documented kidney-injury data within one drug class — not a substitution recommendation. Efficacy, indication, and non-renal toxicity differ between these agents and are out of scope here. Educational only, not medical advice.
The leading contributors to Everolimus’s clinical kidney literature on PubMed, ranked by a blend of publication volume and citation impact — filtered toward clinical work via the PubMed Humans heading and clinical publication types (trials, cohorts, case reports, guidelines, reviews). Names link to that author’s work on Everolimus; the PMIDs beside each name are up to three of their most recent papers on it, not the full count.
Ranked by a 50/50 blend of publication volume and a position-weighted, capped Relative Citation Ratio (NIH iCite) on this agent’s renal literature; the citation count shown is the raw total, not the ranking score — counted over the 201 clinical records among the 300 most-relevant of 620 PubMed matches, so counts are within-sample — bibliometric context, not an endorsement or a measure of clinical authority.