ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Signal mining and analysis of influencing factors for adverse events of Nivolumab and Cetuximab in the treatment of head and neck cancer based on the US FAERS database.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: No prior research has directly compared adverse drug event (ADE) profiles of Nivolumab and Cetuximab in head and neck cancer (HNC) using the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The present study aims to evaluate ADE signal characteristics of both agents to inform clinical decision-making. Methods: Data extracted from FAERS included patient baseline characteristics, which were summarized in a baseline table. Disproportionality analysis with reporting odds ratio (ROR) and Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) was applied to identify signals at the system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) levels. Results: For Nivolumab, three significant SOC-level signals were identified-benign/malignant tumors (including cysts/polyps), hepatobiliary disorders, and endocrine abnormalities. At the PT level, 58 effective signals were observed, with immune-related events such as thyroid dysfunction being particularly frequent. For Cetuximab, 40 effective PT-level signals were detected, dominated by dermatologic toxicity (rash) and metabolic abnormalities (hypomagnesemia). Comparative analysis revealed marked differences between the two drugs: Nivolumab was more strongly associated with immune-mediated reactions, whereas Cetuximab was characterized by cutaneous and metabolic toxicity. Conclusions: This study represents the first FAERS-based assessment of ADE risk differences between Nivolumab and Cetuximab in HNC, offering valuable evidence for clinical monitoring and drug selection. As signal detection reflects statistical correlation rather than causality, confirmatory clinical validation remains necessary. Integration of real-world evidence with prospective clinical trials will be essential to enhance drug safety evaluation systems.
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.