4.5 Review

Relationship between skin rash and outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: A literature-based meta-analysis of 24 trials

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 78, 期 1, 页码 8-15

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.06.009

关键词

Skin rash; Erlotinib; Gefitinib; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Response; Survival; Predictive factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Dermatological toxicity, usually in the form of acneiform rash, is frequently observed in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with anti-EGF receptor (EGER) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The objective of this review was to assess the predictive value of skin rash for outcome in patients with NSCLC treated with erlotinib and gefitinib. Methods: We searched PubMed for articles reporting a correlation of skin rash with survival, progression and response rate. In total, 349 prospective or retrospective studies presenting data regarding patient outcome and skin toxicity were screened. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals for progression and survival and risk ratios (RRs) for response rate were obtained from these publications and pooled in a meta-analysis. Results: This meta-analysis included 24 publications (17 prospective trials and 7 retrospective case series). Skin rash was found to be an independent predictive factor for survival (HR: 0.30; p<0.00001) and progression (HR: 0.50; p<0.00001). In addition, patients who developed grade 2-4 rash were more likely to respond to treatment respect to patients with no rash (42% vs. 7%). The result for survival meta-analysis appears to be similar for gefitinib and erlotinib. Conclusion: These results are noteworthy, because patients with severe skin rash may be reassured over treatment outcome Skin rash during treatment with anti-EGFR TKIs for NSCLC represents a significantly strong predictor of the efficacy in particular for patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据