Advertisement

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 571–583 | Cite as

Skin toxicity with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of 65 randomized controlled trials

  • Jing Li
  • Hengxiu Yan
Review Article
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis to fully investigate the skin toxicities of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (EGFR-MoAbs) in cancer patients. The relevant studies of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer patients treated with EGFR-MoAbs were retrieved and the systematic evaluation was conducted. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched for articles published till November 2017. The relevant RCTs in cancer patients treated with EGFR-MoAbs were retrieved and the systematic evaluation was conducted. 65 RCTs and 25994 patients were included. The current meta-analysis suggests that the use of EGFR-MoAbs significantly increases the risk of developing all-grade and high-grade skin toxicity, such as rash, hand–foot syndrome, dry skin and oral mucositis. Rash was the most common skin toxicity. Patients receiving nimotuzumab were associated with the least risk of skin toxicity. The risk of high-grade skin toxicity tended to be higher in the study in which the EGFR-MoAbs treatment duration was longer. The available data suggested that the use of EGFR-MoAbs significantly increases the risk of developing skin toxicity. Physicians should be aware of skin toxicity and should monitor cancer patients when receiving EGFR-MoAbs.

Keywords

EGFR-MoAbs Cancer Skin toxicity Systematic review Meta-analysis 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Southwest Minzu University, 2018NQN50.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author Jing Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Hengxiu Yan declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

280_2018_3644_MOESM1_ESM.docx (166 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 165 KB)
280_2018_3644_MOESM2_ESM.doc (63 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 63 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Mendelsohn J, Baselga J (2006) Epidermal growth factor receptor targeting in cancer. Semin Oncol 33:369–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karamouzis MV, Grandis JR, Argiris A (2007) Therapies directed against epidermal growth factor receptor in aerodigestive carcinomas. JAMA 298:70–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang BB, Lum P, Chen A et al (2010) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perspectives on the clinical drug development of panitumumab. Clin Pharmacokinet 49:729–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1006–1012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary. Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A et al (2009) Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(5):663–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alberts SR, Sargent DJ, Nair S et al (2012) Effect of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among patients with resected stage III colon cancer. JAMA 307(13):1383–1393CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Láng I et al (2011) Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor kras and braf mutation status. J Clin Oncol 29(15):2011–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A et al (2009) Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360(6):563–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suntharalingam M, Winter K, Ilson D et al (2017) Effect of the addition of cetuximab to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with esophageal cancer the NRG oncology RTOG0436 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 3(11):1520–1528CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berlin JD, Feng Y, Catalano P et al (2017) An intergroup randomized phase II study of bevacizumab or cetuximab in combination with gemcitabine and in combination with chemoradiation in patients with resected pancreatic carcinoma: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E2204). Oncology.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000480295 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pirker R, Pereira JR, von Pawel J et al (2012) EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study. Lancet Oncol 13(1):33–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taieb J, Tabernero J, Mini E et al (2014) Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab in patients with resectedstage III colon cancer (PETACC-8): an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(8):862–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang J, Nair SG, Mahoney MR et al (2014) Comparison of FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab in patients with resected stage III colon cancer; NCCTG (alliance) intergroup trial N0147. Clin Colorectal Cancer 13(2):100–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magrini SM, Buglione M, Corvò R et al (2016) Cetuximab and radiotherapy versus cisplatin and radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 34(5):427–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pirker R, Pereira JR, Szczesna A et al (2009) Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomized phase III trial. Lancet 373(9674):1525–1531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lordick F, Kang YK, Chung HC et al (2013) Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(6):490–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Govindan R, Bogart J, Stinchcombe T et al (2011) Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed, carboplatin, and thoracic radiation with or without cetuximab in patients with locally advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 30407. J Clin Oncol 29(23):3120–3125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lorenzen S, Schuster T, Porschen R et al (2009) Cetuximab plus cisplatin–5-fluorouracil versus cisplatin–5-fluorouracil alone in first-line metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a randomized phase II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie. Ann Oncol 20(10):1667–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bradley JD, Paulus R, Komaki R et al (2015) Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 16(2):187–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malka D, Cervera P, Foulon S et al (2014) Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(8):819–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richards D, Kocs DM, Spira AI et al (2013) Results of docetaxel plus oxaliplatin (DOCOX) ± cetuximab in patients with metastatic gastric and/or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results of a randomised Phase 2 study. Eur J Cancer 49(13):2823–2831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T et al (2014) FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(10):1065–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burtness B, Goldwasser MA, Flood W et al (2005) Phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus placebo compared with cisplatin plus cetuximab in metastatic/recurrent head and neck cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 23(34):8646–8654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dewdney A, Cunningham D, Tabernero J et al (2012) Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C). J Clin Oncol 30(14):1620–1627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Philip PA, Benedetti J, Corless CL et al (2010) Phase III study comparing gemcitabine plus cetuximab versus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Southwest Oncology Group-directed intergroup trial S0205. J Clin Oncol 28(22):3605–3610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tol J, Koopman M, Rodenburg CJ et al (2008) A randomised phase III study on capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab in first-line advanced colorectal cancer, the CAIRO2 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). An interim analysis of toxicity. Ann Oncol 19(4):734–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussain M, Daignault S, Agarwal N et al (2014) A randomized phase 2 trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin with or without cetuximab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 120(17):2684–2693CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Butts CA, Bodkin D, Middleman EL et al (2007) Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin, with or without cetuximab, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(36):5777–5784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosell R, Robinet G, Szczesna A et al (2008) Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 19(2):362–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lilenbaum R, Wang X, Gu L et al (2009) Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus cetuximab or docetaxel plus bortezomib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2: CALGB 30402. J Clin Oncol 27(27):4487–4491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cascinu S, Berardi R, Labianca R et al (2008) Cetuximab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised, multicentre, phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 9(1):39–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lynch TJ, Patel T, Dreisbach L et al (2010) Cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the randomized multicenter phase III trial BMS099. J Clin Oncol 28(6):911–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fleming MT, Sonpavde G, Kolodziej M et al (2012) Association of rash with outcomes in a randomized phase II trial evaluating cetuximab in combination with mitoxantrone plus prednisone after docetaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 10(1):6–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sobrero AF, Maurel J, Fehrenbacher L et al (2008) EPIC: phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(14):2311–2319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chen JS, Hsu C, Chiang NJ et al (2015) A KRAS mutation status-stratified randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin alone or in combination with cetuximab in advanced biliary tract cancer. Ann Oncol 26(5):943–949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saltz L, Badarinath S, Dakhil S et al (2012) Phase III trial of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin vs. FOLFOX-bevacizumab in colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 11(2):101–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trédan O, Campone M, Jassem J et al (2015) Ixabepilone alone or with cetuximab as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 15(1):8–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maughan TS, Adams RA, Smith CG et al (2011) Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet 377(9783):2103–2114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van den Heuvel MM, Uyterlinde W, Vincent AD et al (2014) Additional weekly Cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma: efficacy and safety outcomes of a randomized, multi-center phase II study investigating. Radiother Oncol 110(1):126–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Personeni N, Rimassa L, Verusio C et al (2015) FOLFIRI and cetuximab every second week for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer according to phosphatase and tensin homolog expression: a phase II study. Clin Colorectal Cancer 14(3):162–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim ES, Neubauer M, Cohn A et al (2013) Docetaxel or pemetrexed with or without cetuximab in recurrent or progressive non-small-cell lung cancer after platinum-based therapy: a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14(13):1326–1336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tveit KM, Guren T, Glimelius B et al (2012) Phase III trial of cetuximab with continuous or intermittent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (nordic FLOX) versus FLOX alone in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the NORDIC-VII study. J Clin Oncol 30(15):1755–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baselga J, Gómez P, Greil R et al (2013) Randomized phase II study of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31(20):2586–2592CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Siena S, Van Cutsem E, Li M et al (2013) Phase II open-label study to assess efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in combination with cetuximab in kras-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS One 8(11):e62264CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J et al (2010) Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol 11(1):21–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T et al (2014) Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol 15(10):1065–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ang KK, Zhang Q, Rosenthal DI et al (2014) Randomized phase III trial of concurrent accelerated radiation plus cisplatin with or without cetuximab for stage III to IV head and neck carcinoma: RTOG 0522. J Clin Oncol 32(27):2940–2950CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Crawford J, Swanson P, Schwarzenberger P et al (2013) A phase 2 randomized trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without panitumumab for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 8(12):1510–1518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S et al (2007) Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(13):1658–1664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J et al (2010) Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 28(31):4697–4705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Giralt J, Trigo J, Nuyts S et al (2015) Panitumumab plus radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-2): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 16(2):221–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Chidiac T et al (2009) A randomized phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(5):672–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hecht JR, Cohn A, Dakhil S et al (2015) SPIRITT: a randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI and bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment in patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 14(2):72–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Helbling D, Bodoky G, Gautschi O et al (2013) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): a randomized, multicenter, phase II trial SAKK 41/07. Ann Oncol 24(3):718–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mesía R, Henke M, Fortin A et al (2015) Chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-1): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 16(2):208–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Okines AF, Ashley SE, Cunningham D et al (2010) Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for advanced esophagogastric cancer: dose-finding study for the prospective multicenter, randomized, phase II/III REAL-3 trial. J Clin Oncol 28(25):3945–3950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A et al (2010) Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(31):4706–4713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schuette W, Behringer D, Stoehlmacher J et al (2015) CHAMP: a phase II study of panitumumab with pemetrexed and cisplatin versus pemetrexed and cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage primary nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer with particular regard to the KRAS status. Clin Lung Cancer 16(6):447–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schwartzberg LS, Rivera F, Karthaus M et al (2014) PEAK: a randomized, multicenter phase II study of panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, wild-type KRAS Exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 32(21):2240–2247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Seymour MT, Brown SR, Middleton G et al (2013) Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14(8):749–759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shitara K, Yonesaka K, Denda T et al (2016) Randomized study of FOLFIRI plus either panitumumab or bevacizumab for wild-type KRAS colorectal cancer-WJOG 6210G. Cancer Sci 107(12):1843–1850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tebbutt NC, Price TJ, Ferraro DA et al (2016) Panitumumab added to docetaxel, cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine in oesophagogastric cancer: ATTAX3 phase II trial. Br J Cancer 114(5):505–509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vermorken JB, Stöhlmacher-Williams J, Davidenko I et al (2013) Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14(8):697–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Waddell T, Chau I, Cunningham D et al (2013) Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(6):481–489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Babu KG, Prabhash K, Vaid AK et al (2014) Nimotuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter, randomized, open-label Phase II study. Onco Targets Ther 7:1051–1060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reddy BK, Lokesh V, Vidyasagar MS et al (2014) Nimotuzumab provides survival benefit to patients with inoperable advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A randomized, open-label, phase IIb, 5-year study in Indian patients. Oral Oncol 50(5):498–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Satoh T, Lee KH, Rha SY et al (2015) Randomized phase II trial of nimotuzumab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan alone as second-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 18(4):824–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schultheis B, Reuter D, Ebert MP et al (2017) Gemcitabine combined with the monoclonal antibody nimotuzumab is an active first-line regimen in KRAS wildtype patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: a multicenter, randomized phase IIb study. Ann Oncol 28(10):2429–2435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Westphal M, Heese O, Steinbach JP et al (2015) A randomised, open label phase III trial with nimotuzumab, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody in the treatment of newly diagnosed adult glioblastoma. Eur J Cancer 51(4):522–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Galimont-Collen AF, Vos LE et al (2007) Classification and management of skin, hair, nail and mucosal side-effects of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Eur J Cancer 43(5):845–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lacouture ME (2006) Mechanisms of cutaneous toxicities to EGFR inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 6(10):803–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Boland WK, Bebb G (2009) Nimotuzumab: a novel anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody that retains anti-EGFR activity while minimizing skin toxicity. Expert Opin Biol Ther 9(9):1199–1206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Baas JM, Krens LL, Guchelaar HJ et al (2012) Recommendations on management of EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 38(5):505–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lorusso D, Di Stefano A, Carone V et al (2007) Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-related palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (’hand–foot syndrome’). Ann Oncol 18(7):1159–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Galimont-Collen AF, Vos LE, Lavrijsen AP et al (2007) Classification and management of skin, hair, nail and mucosal side-effects of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Eur J Cancer 43(5):845–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Peuvrel L, Bachmeyer C, Reguiai Z et al (2013) Survey on the management of skin toxicity associated with EGFR inhibitors amongst French physicians. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 27(4):419–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Su X, Lacouture ME, Jia Y et al (2009) Risk of high-grade skin rash in cancer patients treated with cetuximab—an antibody against epidermal growth factor receptor: systemic review and meta-analysis. Oncology 77(2):124–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Qi WX, Sun YJ, Shen Z et al (2014) Risk of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody-related skin rash: an up-to-date meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials. J Chemother 26(6):359–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Petrelli F, Ardito R, Ghidini A et al (2018) Different toxicity of cetuximab and panitumumab in metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncology 94(4):191–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of PharmacySouthwest Minzu UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations