ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the effects of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor on recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2017Pooled it
- Role of EGFR as a prognostic factor for survival in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014Pooled it
- Molecular Crosstalk and Therapeutic Synergy: Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Cannabidiol in Oral Cancer Treatment.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- The anticancer effect of EGFR-targeting artificial microRNA controlled by SLPI promoter in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Gefitinib and Methorexate in Patients With Advanced Stage and Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer.Cureus · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Gefitinib in Patients with Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of oncology · 2019Review
- Antitumor Efficacy of SLPI Promoter-Controlled Expression of Artificial microRNA Targeting EGFR in a Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cell Line.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2017Article
- A novel extracellular drug conjugate significantly inhibits head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Oral oncology · 2013Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy versus non-anti-EGFR therapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
methodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase databases were searched for relevant reports. Quantitative analysis was carried out to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and grade 3-4 adverse effects.
resultsTen reports involving 2,396 patients were included. Primary meta-analysis indicated that anti-EGFR therapy could improve ORR [relative risk (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.67] and PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.71), but failed to improve OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.03). In subgroup analyses, we found that monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) could improve ORR, OS, and PFS for both locoregionally advanced (LA) (ORR: 1.21, 1.08-1.37; OS: 0.72, 0.59-0.89; PFS: 0.66, 0.53-0.83) and recurrent/metastatic (RM) HNSCC (ORR: 1.88, 1.40-2.54; OS: 0.79, 0.67-0.94; PFS: 0.61, 0.52-0.71), while tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) did not improve any of these in patients with either LA (ORR: 1.09, 0.91-1.32; OS: 0.7, 0.31-1.63; PFS: 0.71, 0.34-1.52) or RM (ORR: 1.65, 0.84-3.24; OS: 1.13, 0.97-1.31; PFS: not available) HNSCC. Analysis of adverse effects demonstrated that rash (RR 14.34, 95% CI 5.02-41.02), diarrhea (2.36, 1.15-4.87), and anorexia (2.49, 1.11-5.56) were significantly associated with anti-EGFR therapy.
conclusionsAnti-EGFR Mabs are effective for both LA and RM HNSCC. In contrast, TKIs were unsuitable for treatment of advanced HNSCC. During anti-EGFR therapy, rash and some gastrointestinal reactions, such as diarrhea and anorexia, should be carefully monitored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.