Standard chemotherapy with cetuximab for treatment of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity137 @entity2600 @entity390 @entity1910 @entity984 @entity294 @entity391 @entity14 @entity1349
AIM: To review and assess the evidence related to cetuximab treatment in metastatic @entity14 (mCRC) with regard to @entity984 status. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database and American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of @entity984 status on efficacy of chemotherapy regimen with or without cetuximab in mCRC. Baseline information such as sex and age was summarized from the included studies. Hazard ratios of progression-free survival (PFS) and @entity1349 ( @entity1349 ) as well as objective response based on @entity984 status were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8 RCTs with 6780 @entity1 were included. The combined analysis showed that cetuximab failed to improve the @entity1349 and PFS in @entity1 with mCRC. However, in subgroup analysis, the pooled data showed that addition of cetuximab to @entity2600 containing chemotherapy regimen was sufficient to improve @entity1349 and PFS in wild-type @entity984 mCRC @entity1 , but not in @entity1 with mutant-type @entity984 . The addition of cetuximab increased the incidence of adverse events such as @entity294 , @entity1910 , skin @entity137 / @entity1910 , and @entity390 and @entity391 . There was no significant publication bias existing in the included studies. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of cetuximab was only confirmed in @entity1 with wild-type @entity984 . @entity984 status could be considered a biomarker of efficacy of cetuximab.
