4.6 Review

Addition of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors to standard chemotherapy increases survival of advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 1905-1919

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14228

关键词

EGFR inhibitors; head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; overall survival; progression-free survival; safety profile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis found that the addition of EGFR inhibitors to standard chemotherapy significantly decreased mortality and disease progression in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), but also increased the risk of skin rashes.
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is among the common tumors associated with high mortality. The aim of our meta-analysis was to determine how additional anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy to standard chemotherapy affects the progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the patients, besides the most common side effects. We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases until October 26, 2020, and included 13 eligible randomized controlled trials in our systematic research. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) for the main outcomes from the original data were estimated and for the other dichotomous outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Addition of EGFR inhibitors to conventional chemotherapy significantly decreased the death and disease progression (for PFS HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81, I-2 = 65.5%, p = 0.005) and mortality (for OS HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72-0.94, I-2 = 42.3%, p = 0.076). In the EGFR inhibitor group, we revealed an increased chance of the over Grade 3 skin rashes (OR: 4.86; 95% CI: 1.52-15.49, I-2 = 2.3%, p = 0.407), and all Grade skin rashes (OR: 18.32, 95% CI: 8.07-41.60, I-2 = 56.6%, p = 0.032). Despite their unwanted dermatological side effects, the addition of EGFR inhibitors is recommended to be included in advanced HNSCC therapy.

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

4.6
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