BACKGROUND: Pruritus has been described with targeted therapies in cancer patients. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the incidence and RR in patients with cancer treated with these agents. METHODS: PubMed databases were searched for articles published till October 2014. Eligible studies were selected according to PRISMA statement. Summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of selected studies. FINDINGS: A total of 4803 potentially relevant trials were identified; of them, 33 randomized phase III studies were included in this meta-analysis; 20,151 patients treated with 14 distinct targeted agents were available for this analysis; 8816 (44%) had Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 12,257 had other malignancies. The highest incidences of all-grade pruritus were observed with panitumumab (56.8) and gefitinib (49.4), while the lowest incidences were reported by erlotinib (3.6) and sunitinib (5.8). In addition, the highest incidence of high-grade pruritus was reported by gefitinib (5.9). The summary RR of developing all-grade and high-grade pruritus with targeted agents vs. controls were 2.2 and 2.6, respectively. The highest RRs of all-grade pruritus were associated with panitumumab (25.6) and ipilimumab (4.5). Grouping by drug category, the RR of all-grade pruritus with anti-EGFR mAbs was 2.84 (95% CI 2.39 to 3.37) compared to anti-EGFR/HER2 TKIs and 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.49) to immunotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with biological therapy in cancer patients is associated with a significant increase in the risk of pruritus, and frequent clinical monitoring of pruritus should be emphasized when managing these and newer targeted agents.

Risk of pruritus in cancer patients treated with biological therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Cascinu S.;
2015-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pruritus has been described with targeted therapies in cancer patients. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the incidence and RR in patients with cancer treated with these agents. METHODS: PubMed databases were searched for articles published till October 2014. Eligible studies were selected according to PRISMA statement. Summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of selected studies. FINDINGS: A total of 4803 potentially relevant trials were identified; of them, 33 randomized phase III studies were included in this meta-analysis; 20,151 patients treated with 14 distinct targeted agents were available for this analysis; 8816 (44%) had Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 12,257 had other malignancies. The highest incidences of all-grade pruritus were observed with panitumumab (56.8) and gefitinib (49.4), while the lowest incidences were reported by erlotinib (3.6) and sunitinib (5.8). In addition, the highest incidence of high-grade pruritus was reported by gefitinib (5.9). The summary RR of developing all-grade and high-grade pruritus with targeted agents vs. controls were 2.2 and 2.6, respectively. The highest RRs of all-grade pruritus were associated with panitumumab (25.6) and ipilimumab (4.5). Grouping by drug category, the RR of all-grade pruritus with anti-EGFR mAbs was 2.84 (95% CI 2.39 to 3.37) compared to anti-EGFR/HER2 TKIs and 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.49) to immunotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with biological therapy in cancer patients is associated with a significant increase in the risk of pruritus, and frequent clinical monitoring of pruritus should be emphasized when managing these and newer targeted agents.
2015
Cancer
Meta-analysis
Pruritus
Targeted therapy
Antineoplastic Agents
Biological Therapy
Humans
Incidence
Neoplasms
Pruritus
Risk
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/108806
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact