Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23981682›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2013

Pruritus in patients treated with targeted cancer therapies: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Courtney J Ensslin, Alyx C Rosen, Shenhong Wu, Mario E Lacouture

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. IgE blockade with omalizumab reduces pruritus related to immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-HER2 therapies.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Non-dermatological Challenges of Chronic Itch.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Pruritus in patients with solid tumors: an overlooked supportive care need.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney J EnsslinDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Alyx C RosenDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Shenhong WuDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York.
Mario E LacoutureDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: lacoutum@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USState University of New York · US

Funding

Summer research experiences for medical students supervised by faculty mentorsR25CA020449 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Charlotte Eielson Ariyan · 1985 to 2026
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA020449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPruritus has been anecdotally described in association with targeted cancer therapies. The risk of pruritus has not been systematically ascertained.

objectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted for axitinib, cetuximab, dasatinib, erlotinib, everolimus, gefitinib, imatinib, ipilimumab, lapatinib, nilotinib, panitumumab, pazopanib, rituximab, sorafenib, temsirolimus, tositumomab, vandetanib, and vemurafenib.

methodsDatabases from PubMed, Web of Science (January 1998 through July 2012), and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts (2004 through 2012) were searched. Incidence and relative risk of pruritus were calculated using random- or fixed-effects model.

resultsThe incidences of all-grade and high-grade pruritus were 17.4% (95% confidence interval 16.0%-19.0%) and 1.4% (95% confidence interval 1.2%-1.6%), respectively. There was an increased risk of all-grade pruritus (relative risk 2.90 [95% confidence interval 1.76-4.77, P < .001]) and variation among different drugs (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The reporting of pruritus may vary, resulting from concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies. We found a higher incidence of pruritus in patients with solid tumors, concordant with those targeted therapies with the highest pruritus incidences.

conclusionThere is a significant risk of developing pruritus in patients receiving targeted therapies. To prevent suboptimal dosing and decreased quality of life, patients should be counseled and treated against this untoward symptom.

Indexed as

Drug EruptionsHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasmsPruritusadverse eventsAEBcr-AblB-lymphocyte antigen cluster of differentiation 20cancerCD20CIconfidence intervalCTLA4EGFREGFRIsepidermal growth factor receptorepidermal growth factor receptor inhibitorsHER2human epidermal growth factor receptor 2inhibitoritchmammalian target of rapamycinpruritusQoLquality of lifeRafrelative riskRRT-lymphocyte antigen 4vascular endothelial growth factor receptorVEGFR

Identifiers

PMID23981682
PMCPMC4181350
OpenAlexW1986803564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.