ArticleCureus2026
Maculopapular-Type Drug Eruption Caused by Cetuximab.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cetuximab, a chimeric immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, is well known to cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions mediated by pre-existing IgE antibodies against galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal). In contrast, T-cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reactions are exceedingly rare. We report an 85-year-old woman with stage IV colon cancer who developed a reproducible exanthematous (maculopapular) drug eruption after the re-administration of cetuximab. The eruption occurred several days after infusion, resolved promptly after drug discontinuation, and recurred upon unintentional re-exposure during routine oncologic re-administration. Histopathology revealed interface dermatitis with eosinophilic infiltration, and laboratory findings showed mild eosinophilia. The clinical course and histologic features, including a reproducible eruption upon re-exposure, were strongly consistent with a drug-induced type IV hypersensitivity reaction, supporting the diagnosis. This case underscores the importance of recognizing delayed cutaneous adverse reactions when considering treatment interruption and re-challenge during prolonged or intermittent cetuximab therapy.
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.