International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 389–399 | Cite as

Risk of fatigue in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

  • Jianhong Zhu
  • Wenxia Zhao
  • Dan Liang
  • Guocheng Li
  • Kaifeng Qiu
  • Junyan Wu
  • Jianfang Li
Original Article
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

The present study suggested that anti-EGFR MAbs may increase the risk of fatigue in cancer patients.

Keywords

Anti-EGFR MAbs Fatigue Meta-analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grant [2013]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.

Supplementary material

10147_2017_1218_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)
10147_2017_1218_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Berger AM, Mooney K, Alvarez-Perez A et al (2015) Cancer-related fatigue, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 13:1012–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD et al (2007) Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist 12:4–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rowland A, Dias MM, Wiese MD et al (2016) Meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy between KRAS G13D and other KRAS mutant metastatic colorectal cancer tumours. Eur J Cancer 55:122–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibrahim EM, Abouelkhair KM, Al-Masri OA et al (2011) Cetuximab-based therapy is effective in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lung 189:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrelli F, Barni S (2012) Anti-EGFR-targeting agents in recurrent or metastatic head and neck carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Head Neck 34:1657–1664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miroddi M, Sterrantino C, Simonelli I et al (2015) Risk of grade 3–4 diarrhea and mucositis in colorectal cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies regimens: a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 96:355–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 26:359–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miroddi M, Sterrantino C, Simmonds M et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of severe and life-threatening thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab). Int J Cancer 139:2370–2380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Funakoshi T, Suzuki M, Tamura K (2014) Infectious complications in cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 40:1221–1229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, Collaboration Cochrane (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu J, Wu J, Li G et al (2017) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the incidence and risk of fatal adverse events in cancer patients treated with ipilimumab. Expert Opin Drug Saf 16:423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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: a randomized trial. JAMA 307:1383–1393CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 32:2940–2950CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    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 27:663–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borner M, Koeberle D, Von Moos R et al (2008) Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK. Ann Oncol 19:1288–1292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    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 23:8646–8654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    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 8:1510–1518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crosby T, Hurt CN, Falk S et al (2013) Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14:627–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J et al (2014) Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 25:1346–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    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 24:718–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 13:100–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 (Phila) 120:2684–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS et al (2007) Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2040–2048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 14:1326–1336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim TW, Elme A, Kusic Z et al (2016) A phase 3 trial evaluating panitumumab plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS or RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 115:1206–1214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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 14:490–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 34.
    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 28:911–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 15:819–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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 16:208–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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 28:3605–3610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 randomised phase III trial. Lancet 373:1525–1531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 40.
    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 49:2823–2831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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 18:824–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schiller JH, von Pawel J, Schütt P et al (2010) Pemetrexed with or without matuzumab as second-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 5:1977–1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    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 26:2311–2319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A et al (2009) Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360:563–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 47.
    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 25:1658–1664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Van Cutsem E, Lenz HJ, Köhne CH et al (2015) Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:692–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 50.
    Ryan JL, Carroll JK, Ryan EP et al (2007) Mechanisms of cancer-related fatigue. Oncologist 12(suppl 1):22–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mustian KM, Alfano CM, Heckler C et al (2017) Comparison of pharmaceutical, psychological, and exercise treatments for cancer-related fatigue: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 3:961–968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene RegulationSun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of PharmacySun-Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations