Risk of fatigue in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial
- 124 Downloads
To evaluate the association between fatigue and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies (anti-EGFR MAbs), we conducted the first meta-analysis to access the incidence and risk of fatigue associated with anti-EGFR MAbs.
Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 2017. Eligible studies were selected according to PRISMA statement. Incidence rates, risk ratio (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. Outcomes of quality were summarized in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology.
Thirty-five RCTs (including 15,622 patients) were included; median follow-up ranged from 8.1 to 71.4 months, and the fatigue events were recorded and graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 2.0 or 3.0 in most of the included trials. For patients receiving anti-EGFR MAbs, the overall incidence of all-grade and high-grade fatigue was 54.1% and 10.5%, respectively. Compared with control, anti-EGFR MAbs significantly increased the risk of all-grade fatigue (RR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.05–1.14, moderate-quality evidence) and high-grade fatigue (RR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.19–1.45, moderate-quality evidence). No significant differences among subgroup analyses (anti-EGFR MAbs, tumor type, and median follow-up) on high-grade fatigue were observed. No evidence of publication bias was observed.
The present study suggested that anti-EGFR MAbs may increase the risk of fatigue in cancer patients.
KeywordsAnti-EGFR MAbs Fatigue Meta-analysis
This work was supported by Grant 163 from Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Molecular Mechanism and Translational Medicine of Guangzhou Bureau of Science and Information Technology; Grant KLB09001 from the Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Gene Regulation and Target Therapy of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes. The sponsors have no role in the design or implementation of the study, data collection, data management, data analysis, data interpretation, or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
- 16.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 31:2586–2592CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.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 16:187–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Butts CA, Bodkin D, Middleman EL et al (2007) Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin [corrected], with or without cetuximab, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic non small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5777–5784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.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 29:3120–3125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.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 20:1667–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Rao S, Starling N, Cunningham D et al (2010) Matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) compared with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study. Ann Oncol 21:2213–2219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.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 16:447–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.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 30:1755–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Ghatalia P, Je Y, Nguyen PL et al (2015) Fatigue with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and other malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 95:251–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar