Efficacy and safety of afatinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations: A real-world study based meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21134-e21134
Author(s):  
Lemeng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Dose Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e21134 Background: This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of Afatinib in advanced EGFR mutation NSCLC patients based on real-world evidence. We also explore the effectiveness of tolerability-guided dose reduction on outcomes in the real-world setting. Methods: Eligible real-world studies from Pubmed, Emabse and Cochrane Library were included in this study. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the guidelines of Cochrane. Then heterogeneity analysis was performed based on Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. Results: A total of twenty-five studies were enrolled for this meta-analysis. Meanwhile, nine studies were included in qualitative descriptive analysis. The efficacy of DCR and ORR were 87.6 % (81.5, 92.7) and 58.9 % (48.8, 68.7). The pooled medium PFS was 12.45 months (10.36, 14.54), medium TTF was 15.42 months (13.62, 17.22) and medium OS was 31.67 (26.78, 36.56) months. The efficacy of afatinib in first-line only group was superior than those in second-line. The total incidence of adverse events for diarrhea, mucositis and skin rashes were 70.4 (60.1, 79.8)%, 36.5 (29.5, 43.8)% and 71.4 (64.4, 77.9)%, respectively. Meanwhile, the serious adverse reactions (Grade ≥3) for diarrhea, mucositis and skin rashes were 9.7 (6.8, 13.1)%, 2.1 (1.0, 3.6)% and 5.8 (4.5, 7.2)%, respectively. Furthermore, the different for PFS and OS between afatinib non-full dose group ( < 40mg) and full dose group ( > 40mg) was not significant (P < 0.05). however, the ORR in full dose group was 78.5 % (66.7, 88.4), which was significantly higher in the non-full dose group 67.8 % (56.8, 77.9). Conclusions: Afatinib was a safe and effective TKI for real-world EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients, which was consistent with the results of RCT. Tolerability-guided dose adjustment might affect the efficacy of afatinib in real-world setting.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Mutations: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Lemeng Zhang ◽  
Yongzhong Luo ◽  
Jianhua Chen ◽  
Tianli Cheng ◽  
Hua Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Dose Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Real World Evidence

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations based on real-world evidence. Materials and Methods. Eligible real-world studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics were used for the heterogeneity analysis. Results. Twenty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis; nine studies were included in the qualitative descriptive analysis. The summarized disease control rate (DCR) was 87.6% (81.5%, 92.7%), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 58.9% (48.8%, 68.7%). The pooled median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.4 (10.3, 14.5) months, mean time to failure (TTF) was 15.4 (13.6, 17.2) months, and median overall survival (OS) was 31.6 (26.7, 36.5) months. The total incidences of adverse events (AEs) for skin rashes, diarrhea, paronychia, and mucositis were 71.4% (64.4%, 77.9%), 70.4% (60.1%, 79.8%), 52.1% (41.9, 62.3%), and 36.5% (29.5%, 43.8%), respectively. The incidences of severe adverse events (SAEs, Grade ≥3) for diarrhea, skin rashes, paronychia, and mucositis were 9.7% (6.8%, 13.1%), 5.8% (4.5%, 7.2%), 3.8% (2.0%, 6.2%), and 2.1% (1.0%, 3.6%), respectively. Differences in PFS and OS between the afatinib non-full-dose (<40 mg) and full-dose (>40 mg) groups were not significant ( P > 0.05 ). However, the ORR in the full-dose group was 78.5% (66.7%, 88.4%), which was significantly higher than that in the non-full-dose group (67.8% [56.8%, 77.9%]). Conclusion. The efficacy and safety of afatinib has been confirmed by real-world evidence in advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation, consistent with randomized controlled trial results. In real-world setting, tolerability-guided dose adjustment might not affect the afatinib efficacy.

scholarly journals Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e032128
Author(s):  
Shuai Ming ◽  
Kunpeng Xie ◽  
Mingzhu Yang ◽  
Huijuan He ◽  
Ya Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Real World ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.ResultsFour RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = −6.59; 95% CI −8.87 to −4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5–6 months. Results were similar (MD6 months=−12.68; 95% CI −21.98 to −3.37 letters; MD12 months=−9.69; 95% CI −12.01 to −7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.ConclusionCompared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared to rivaroxaban in acute VTE in the real world

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (15) ◽  
pp. 2381-2387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madan Raj Aryal ◽  
Rohit Gosain ◽  
Anthony Donato ◽  
Han Yu ◽  
Anjan Katel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
The Real ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Both apixaban and rivaroxaban have been approved for use in acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although indirect comparison through network meta-analyses of randomized trials have been performed to compare the efficacy and safety of these agents, further comparison between these agents was lacking until recently. We sought to systematically review and carry out a meta-analysis of studies to further compare apixaban with rivaroxaban from multiple studies done in the real-world settings. Studies comparing rivaroxaban with apixaban in patients with acute VTE were identified through electronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library up to May 2019. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model meta-analysis. In an analysis involving 24 041 patients, recurrent VTE within 6 months occurred in 56 of 4897 patients (1.14%) in the apixaban group and 258 of 19 144 patients (1.35%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.19; P = .45). Clinically relevant major bleeding occurred in 85 of 11 559 patients (0.74%) in the apixaban group and 350 of 33 909 patients (1.03%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; P = .01). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 169 of 3417 patients (4.95%) in the apixaban group and 1094 of 12 475 patients (8.77%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; P &lt; .01). Apixaban shows equivalent efficacy in prevention of recurrent VTE but decreased risk of major and minor bleeding events compared with rivaroxaban.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Different Maintenance Doses of Caffeine Citrate for Treatment of Apnea in Premature Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Lu Jin ◽  
Xiao Chen
Keyword(s):  
Premature Infants ◽  
Dose Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
High Dose Group ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Caffeine Citrate

Background. Caffeine is widely used for the treatment of neonatal apnea, but there is no agreement on the optimum maintenance dose for preterm infants. Objective. The aims of this meta-analysis were to compare the efficacy and safety of high versus low maintenance doses of caffeine citrate for the treatment of apnea in premature infants. Methods. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature, Weipu Journal, Wanfang, and CNKI databases up to September 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of caffeine citrate for apnea treatment in premature infants were included. Trials were divided into those testing high maintenance doses (10−20 mg/kg daily) and low maintenance doses (5−10 mg/kg daily) for comparison. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. Results. Among the 345 studies initially identified, thirteen RCTs involving 1515 patients were included. Compared to the low-dose group, the high-dose group exhibited greater effective treatment rate (RR: 1.37, 95%CI: 1.18 to 1.60, P<0.0001) and success rate for ventilator removal (RR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.04 to 2.90, P=0.03), but higher incidence of tachycardia (RR: 2.02, 5%CI: 1.30 to 3.12, P=0.002). The high-dose group also demonstrated lower extubation failure rate (RR: 0.5, 95%CI: 0.35 to 0.71, P=0.0001), frequency of apnea (WMD: -1.55, 95%CI: -2.72 to -0.39, P=0.009), apnea duration (WMD: -4.85, 95%CI: -8.29 to -1.40, P=0.006), and incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.68 to 0.91, P=0.002). There were no significant group differences in other adverse events including in-hospital death (P>0.05). Conclusions. Higher maintenance doses of caffeine citrate appear more effective and safer than low maintenance doses for treatment of premature apnea, despite a higher incidence of tachycardia.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety outcomes of recanalisation procedures in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Thorax ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 464-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Jimenez ◽  
Carlos Martin-Saborido ◽  
Alfonso Muriel ◽  
Javier Zamora ◽  
Raquel Morillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Meta Regression

BackgroundWe aimed to review the efficacy and safety of recanalisation procedures for the treatment of PE.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from inception through 31 July 2015 and included randomised clinical trials that compared the effect of a recanalisation procedure versus each other or anticoagulant therapy in patients diagnosed with PE. We used network meta-analysis and multivariate random-effects meta-regression to estimate pooled differences between each intervention and meta-regression to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of recanalisation procedures versus anticoagulation.ResultsFor all-cause mortality, there were no significant differences in event rates between any of the recanalisation procedures and anticoagulant treatment (full-dose thrombolysis: OR 0.60; 95% CI0.36 to 1.01; low-dose thrombolysis: 0.47; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.59; and catheter-associated thrombolysis: 0.31; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.96). Full-dose thrombolysis increased the risk of major bleeding (2.00; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.78) compared with anticoagulation. Catheter-directed thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 0.67), followed by low-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.66) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.55). Similarly, low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of major bleeding (SUCRA, 0.61), followed by catheter-directed thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.54) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.17). The results were similar in sensitivity analyses based on restricting only to studies in haemodynamically stable patients with PE.ConclusionsIn the treatment of PE, recanalisation procedures do not seem to offer a clear advantage compared with standard anticoagulation. Low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying and bleeding.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42015024670.

Safety and efficacy of direct acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation – a network meta-analysis of real-world data

VASA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirko Hirschl ◽  
Michael Kundi
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
Event Rates

Abstract. Background: In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) showed a superior risk-benefit profile in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Patients enrolled in such studies do not necessarily reflect the whole target population treated in real-world practice. Materials and methods: By a systematic literature search, 88 studies including 3,351,628 patients providing over 2.9 million patient-years of follow-up were identified. Hazard ratios and event-rates for the main efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted and the results for DOACs and VKAs combined by network meta-analysis. In addition, meta-regression was performed to identify factors responsible for heterogeneity across studies. Results: For stroke and systemic embolism as well as for major bleeding and intracranial bleeding real-world studies gave virtually the same result as RCTs with higher efficacy and lower major bleeding risk (for dabigatran and apixaban) and lower risk of intracranial bleeding (all DOACs) compared to VKAs. Results for gastrointestinal bleeding were consistently better for DOACs and hazard ratios of myocardial infarction were significantly lower in real-world for dabigatran and apixaban compared to RCTs. By a ranking analysis we found that apixaban is the safest anticoagulant drug, while rivaroxaban closely followed by dabigatran are the most efficacious. Risk of bias and heterogeneity was assessed and had little impact on the overall results. Analysis of effect modification could guide the clinical decision as no single DOAC was superior/inferior to the others under all conditions. Conclusions: DOACs were at least as efficacious as VKAs. In terms of safety endpoints, DOACs performed better under real-world conditions than in RCTs. The current real-world data showed that differences in efficacy and safety, despite generally low event rates, exist between DOACs. Knowledge about these differences in performance can contribute to a more personalized medicine.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with CAD Undergoing Drug-eluting Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (44) ◽  
pp. 5739-5745
Author(s):  
Jieqiong Guan ◽  
Wenjing Song ◽  
Pan He ◽  
Siyu Fan ◽  
Hong Zhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Drug Eluting

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent. Background: The optimal duration of DAPT to balance the risk of ischemia and bleeding in CAD patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, CNKI and Wanfang Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of comparing different durations of DAPT after DES implantation. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and major bleeding, and were pooled by Bayes network meta-analysis. Net adverse clinical and cerebral events were used to estimate the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. The subgroup analysis based on clinical status, follow-up and area was conducted using traditional pairwise meta-analysis. Results: A total of nineteen trials (n=51,035) were included, involving six duration strategies. The network metaanalysis showed that T2 (<6-month DAPT followed by aspirin, HR:1.51, 95%CI:1.02-2.22), T3 (standard 6-month DAPT, HR:1.47, 95%CI:1.14-1.91), T4 (standard 12-month DAPT, HR:1.41, 95%CI:1.15-1.75) and T5 (18-24 months DAPT, HR:1.47, 95%CI:1.09-1.97) was associated with significantly increased risk of MACCE compared to T6 (>24-month DAPT). However, no significant difference was found in MACCE risk between T1 (<6-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy) and T6. Moreover, T5 was associated with significantly increased risk of bleeding compared to T1(RR:3.94, 95%CI:1.66-10.60), T2(RR:3.65, 95%CI:1.32-9.97), T3(RR:1.93, 95%CI:1.21-3.50) and T4(RR:1.89, 95%CI:1.15-3.30). The cumulative probabilities showed that T6(85.0%), T1(78.3%) and T4(44.5%) were the most efficacious treatment compared to the other durations. In the ACS (<50%) subgroup, T1 was observed to significantly reduce the risk of major bleeding compared to T4, but not in the ACS (≥50%) subgroup. Conclusions: Compared with other durations, short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy showed non-inferiority, with a lower risk of bleeding and not associated with an increased MACCE. In addition, the risk of major bleeding increased significantly, starting with DAPT for 18-month. Compared with the short-term treatment, patients with ACS with the standard 12-month treatment have a better prognosis, including lower bleeding rate and the decreased risk of MACCE. Due to study's limitations, the results should be verified in different risk populations.

scholarly journals Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052110327
Author(s):  
Weihua Liu ◽  
Wenli Yu ◽  
Hongli Yu ◽  
Mingwei Sheng
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Weighted Mean

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e046352
Author(s):  
Lijuan Zhang ◽  
Yanli Song ◽  
Nan Jiang ◽  
Yaqi Huang ◽  
Bo Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Oesophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Positive Effects

ObjectivesDespite remarkable advances in the treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC), the role of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents in treating OC remains controversial. Herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate the efficacy and safety of anti-EGFR agents in patients with OC.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases from inception to December 2019. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.SettingRCTs from any country and healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients with OC.InterventionsCombination therapy with anti-EGFR agents and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone in patients with OC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary outcome measures, and objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment toxicities were secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 25 RCTs comprising 3406 patients with OC were included. Overall, anti-EGFR treatment significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p<0.00001), ORR (relative risk (RR): 1.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52, p<0.0001) and DCR (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.34, p<0.0001) but not PFS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08, p=0.26). Anti-EGFR treatment was significantly associated with higher incidences of myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rash and hypomagnesaemia.ConclusionsOverall, anti-EGFR agents have positive effects on OS, the ORR and DCR in OC. However, considering the high incidence of adverse effects, such as myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rashes and hypomagnesaemia, careful monitoring of patients with OC is recommended during anti-EGFR treatment.Trial registration numberCRD42020169230.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document