Risk and Incidence of Infection with Bevacizumab in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

3Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: A previous meta-analysis suggested that use of bevacizumab is associated with an increased risk of infection in cancer patients. With the continuous accumulation of evidence in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we performed a new, focused meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to quantify the relative risk (RR) and incidence of infectious complications in those individuals treated with bevacizumab. Methods: Electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Eligible studies were prospective randomized clinical trials of NSCLC patients treated with bevacizumab with toxicity data on infectious complications. RR, overall incidence rates, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: A total of 4,545 patients from 14 prospective RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment with bevacizumab was not associated with an increased risk of all-grade (RR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.84-1.49) or high-grade (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.86-1.41) infections, respectively. The summary incidences of all-grade and high-grade infections in patients receiving bevacizumab in the treatment group were 16.4% (95% CI: 15.7-17.2%) and 4.3% (95% CI: 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Conclusions: The use of bevacizumab is not associated with a significantly higher risk of infections in NSCLC patients. These data provide reassurance regarding the risk of infection in patients with NSCLC receiving bevacizumab.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Peng, L., Qin, B. D., Xu, S., Xia, Y., Yang, J. S., Xiao, K., & Stebbing, J. (2022). Risk and Incidence of Infection with Bevacizumab in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis. Oncology Research and Treatment, 45(5), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1159/000522390

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free