↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
Title
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007047.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Lok Hang Chan, Eva Segelov, Rachel SH Wong, Annabel Smith, Rebecca A Herbertson, Bob T. Li, Niall Tebbutt, Timothy Price, Nick Pavlakis

Abstract

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity. To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed. We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone. We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type). We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I(2) = 76%; overall survival: I(2) = 40%; and response rate: I(2) = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I(2) = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I(2) = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies. The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 286 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Other 28 10%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 78 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Unspecified 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 87 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,281,942
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,762
of 12,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,100
of 306,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.