SynthesisCancer medicine2025
Efficacy and Safety of EGF/EGFR Vaccines in EGFR-Driven Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled and Single-Arm Studies.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of EGF/EGFR Vaccines in EGFR-Driven Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled and Single-Arm Studies.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond the membrane: rethinking EGFR signaling in physiology and cancer.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite multiple clinical trials, the benefits and safety of epidermal growth factor (EGF)/EGF receptor (EGFR) vaccines in EGFR-driven solid tumors remain unclear due to small sample sizes and heterogeneous study designs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate their efficacy and safety.
methodsWe conducted pairwise and single-arm meta-analyses following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251026774). Searches in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified 26 trials (2701 participants). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with secondary analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Statistical analyses were performed using R software, with fixed or random-effects models per heterogeneity (I
resultsCompared with best supportive care, vaccine monotherapy significantly improved long-term OS in NSCLC and GBM (3-year OR = 2.16, 5-year OR = 3.20) and prolonged median OS in NSCLC (HR = 0.76). In single-arm studies, NSCLC patients receiving vaccine monotherapy had a 1-year OS of 64% (75% in first-line maintenance), with an ORR of 2% and DCR of 31%. For GBM, vaccine combination therapy improved 3-year OS (OR = 2.42) and 2-year PFS (OR = 1.63) versus standard therapy. Single-arm combination analyses showed an overall 1-year OS of 84%, ORR of 42%, and DCR of 87%, while NSCLC first-line combination achieved a 1-year OS of 85% and DCR of 89%. Notably, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients had a pooled ORR of 65% and DCR of 98%. Common TRAEs were grade 1-2 (injection site reactions, fever, headache, and vomiting), and combination therapy had no new or severe toxicities.
conclusionsEGF/EGFR vaccines may improve survival in EGFR-driven solid tumors, particularly NSCLC and GBM. Monotherapy enables long-term disease control, and combination therapy enhances efficacy without added toxicity, supporting further clinical validation.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251026774.
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.