Emmanuelle Steels

The role of EGF-R expression on patient survival in lung cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

The prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGF-R) for survival of patients with lung cancer remains controversial. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature in order to clarify its impact. Published studies were identified using an electronic search in order to aggregate the available survival results, after a methodological assessment using a scale specifically designed by the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP). To be eligible, a study had to have dealt with EGF-R assessment in lung cancer patients on the primary site and to have analysed survival according to EGF-R expression. Among the 16 eligible studies, 14 assessed any nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtype, one adenocarcinoma only and one squamous-cell carcinoma only. The overall median quality score was 56.3%, with no significant difference either between studies assessable or not assessable for meta-analysis or between studies with significant and nonsignificant results. One individual trial reported a survival benefit for patients with EGF-R expression, three a survival disadvantage and 12 no statistically significant difference. Eleven studies (2,185 patients) provided sufficient data to allow a meta-analysis of the survival results. EGF-R expression positivity was determined according to the cut-off as determined by the authors. The meta-analysis showed that EGF-R expression was not a statistically significant prognostic factor for survival in NSCLC. In the subgroup of studies using immunohistochemistry, statistical tests reached a significant level against EGF-R. Epidermal growth factor receptor might be a poor prognostic factor for survival in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. The amplitude of the impact is small, however, and may be subject to publication bias.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis.

The effectiveness of granulocyte and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF and GM-CSF) in the treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients remains controversial. To assess their role in this condition, we conducted a systematic review of randomised trials published as full papers. A methodological evaluation using a specifically designed quality scale was performed before meta-analysis. Eleven trials were eligible, 8 of which were meta-analysable. The median quality score for the 11 pooled trials was 58.3% (range: 33.3%–68.8%). No significant quality difference was observed between positive (colony-stimulating factor more effective) and negative trials (P=0.36). No quality difference was observed between the 8 meta-analysable studies and the 3 others, with respective median scores of 59.3% and 50%. No advantage was detected for the use of CSF in terms of mortality from febrile neutropenia, with a relative risk of 0.71 (95% CI 0.44–1.15). The relative risk was 0.66 (95% CI 0.39–1.13) in the G-CSF subgroup and 0.97 (95% CI 0.34–2.79) in the GM-CSF subgroup. Aggregation of the results on infection-related mortality, length of stay in hospital, fever and of neutropenia duration, antibiotic therapy adaptation and duration, superinfection rate and toxicity was not possible owing to the lack of adequate data in the publications. On the basis of this review, we cannot recommend the routine use of G-CSF or GM-CSF in established febrile neutropenia.