SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Risk of high-grade infections in colorectal cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Background: Although anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are extensively used in metastatic colorectal cancer therapy, their association with the risk of high grade infections remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the risk of high grade infections and febrile neutropenia in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to include all randomized controlled trials comparing anti-EGFR therapy with control measures in the treatment of CRC up to 12 October 2025. Data on high grade infections and febrile neutropenia were extracted. As claimed by the heterogeneity (I²) results, random or fixed effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidence with its risk ratio (RR). Results: A significantly elevated risk of high grade infection was associated with anti-EGFR therapy based on a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (N = 7927). The incidence was 15.8% in the treatment group versus 10.2% in the control group, corresponding to a pooled RR of 1.49 (95% CI: 1.23-1.82, P < 0.001), which represents a 49% increase in risk. The analysis indicated moderate heterogeneity (I² = 43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the association was robust. However, the difference in the risk of febrile neutropenia between the groups was not statistically significant (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.98-1.63, P = 0.08). The funnel plot and Egger's test indicated the potential presence of publication bias. Conclusion: Treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) notably augments the risk of high grade infections in CRC patients, but does not significantly raise the risk of febrile neutropenia. These findings suggest that enhanced monitoring and preventive management of infections are necessary when applying EGFR-targeted therapy in clinical practice.
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.