ArticleBMC cancer2018
Oral mucositis associated with anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer: single institutional retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. 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.
- Oral mucositis risk with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapies and combination regimens in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Risk of high-grade infections in colorectal cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety Assessment on Serious Adverse Events of Targeted Therapeutic Agents Prescribed for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of Dendrobium Officinale on Radioactive Oral Mucositis of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and Changes of Oral Microecology.Integrative cancer therapiesTrial
- The Benefits and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies: Implications for Cancer Immunotherapy.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Review
- Risk factors for oral mucositis in patients with solid tumors under treatment with cetuximab: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2024Article
- Characterization of a novel dual murine model of chemotherapy-induced oral and intestinal mucositis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Pembrolizumab-Induced Immune-Mediated Glossitis.Cureus · 2022Article
- MicroRNA-940 restricts the expression of metastasis-associated gene MACC1 and enhances the antitumor effect of Anlotinib on colorectal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Aphthous-Like Stomatitis in a Patient Receiving Panitumumab.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy-induced oral mucositis impairs the quality of life. The difference in severity of oral mucositis between different anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies combined with cytotoxic drugs in colorectal cancer is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in oral mucositis between panitumumab (Pmab) and cetuximab (Cmab) combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study. A total of 75 colorectal cancer outpatients treated with an anti-EGFR antibody combined with FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or 5-FU/leucovorin as the first- to third-line treatment were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 2-3 oral mucositis. The secondary endpoint was the time to onset of oral mucositis. We also compared the incidence of toxicities of interest, skin toxicity, hypomagnesaemia and neutropenia, and time to treatment failure (TTF) between the two groups.
resultsThirty-two patients treated with Pmab and 43 patients treated with Cmab were evaluated. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. The incidence of grade 2-3 oral mucositis was significantly higher with Pmab than with Cmab (31.3% vs 9.3%, P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of grade 3 oral mucositis was significantly higher in patients treated with Pmab (18.8% vs 0%, P < 0.01). The mean (SD) cycles to onset of the worst oral mucositis was 3.0 (2.9) in the Pmab group and 2.3 (1.7) in the Cmab group (P = 0.29). Oral mucositis was characterized by glossitis and cheilitis. The incidences of other toxicities were the following (Pmab vs Cmab): grade 2-3 skin toxicity: 68.8% vs 74.4% (P = 0.61), grade 2-3 hypomagnesaemia: 9.3% vs 7.0% (P = 1.00), grade 3-4 neutropenia: 28.1% vs 37.2% (P = 0.46). The median TTF was not significantly different, i.e., 223 days vs 200 days (P = 0.39) for Pmab vs Cmab.
conclusionsPmab-based chemotherapy resulted in significantly higher grades of oral mucositis compared with Cmab-based chemotherapy. The oral condition should be monitored carefully and early supportive care should be provided for patients treated with Pmab-based chemotherapy.
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.