SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
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.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and aims: Oral mucositis (OM) impairs quality of life, necessitates dose modification, and disrupts treatment continuity in patients receiving EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), yet comparative OM risks across monotherapies and combination regimens remain poorly defined. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to June 13, 2026, for phase II or III randomized controlled trials. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for any-grade and grade ≥3 OM. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Sixty-three trials involving 21,845 participants were included. Compared with chemotherapy, higher odds of any-grade OM were observed with afatinib plus cetuximab (OR 11.97, 95% CrI 2.27-65.45), afatinib (OR 9.73, 95% CrI 3.75-26.50), dacomitinib (OR 5.12, 95% CrI 1.71-16.00), and erlotinib plus chemotherapy (OR 2.84, 95% CrI 1.27-6.53), with low-, high-, moderate-, and very-low-certainty evidence, respectively; for grade ≥3 OM, with afatinib plus cetuximab (OR 13.91, 95% CrI 1.55-199.26), afatinib (OR 8.80, 95% CrI 1.37-100.11), and mobocertinib (OR 8.12, 95% CrI 1.14-97.77), all supported by moderate-certainty evidence. Afatinib plus cetuximab ranked highest for both outcomes (SUCRA, 89.0% and 91.6%). Second-generation EGFR-TKIs generally ranked higher, whereas the third-generation agents osimertinib and furmonertinib ranked lower. Combination regimens often yielded higher point estimates than matched monotherapies, but most comparisons were inconclusive. Conclusions: OM risk varies substantially across EGFR-TKI regimens. Higher-risk regimens warrant strengthened baseline oral assessment, patient education, and monitoring during treatment. Given limited head-to-head evidence for novel agents/combinations and imprecision in some estimates, findings warrant further validation in standardized prospective studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261449930, identifier CRD420261449930.
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.