We sought details of ongoing or unpublished trials from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, the regulatory body for medicines within the USA) and EMEA (European Medicines Agency, the drug regulatory body within Europe), and from pharmaceutical company sources. We searched the reference lists of all included trials for further relevant trials. Correspondence We contacted the authors of relevant trials to ask for clarification and for further data, which may or may not have been published, and we requested further information from pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of anti\EGFR brokers. Data collection and analysis Selection of studies We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to the reference management database and removed duplicates. Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE, and Embase up to October 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field. This update includes further searches up to September 2017. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti\EGFR brokers with or without conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone or no treatment in women with histologically confirmed EOC. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed GRADE assessment. Main results From 6105 recommendations obtained through the literature search and an additional 15 references derived from grey literature searches, we identified seven RCTs that met our inclusion criteria and included 1725 participants. Trial results show that after first\line chemotherapy is provided, maintenance treatment with erlotinib (EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)) probably makes little or no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1 1.20; one study; 835 participants; low\certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference in progression\free survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 Gardiquimod TFA to 1 1.23; one study; 835 participants; very low\certainty evidence). Significantly less than 50% of individuals provided standard of living data, and research authors incompletely reported these outcomes. The certainty of proof is quite low, but treatment might reduce standard of living in comparison to observation. Treatment with an EGFR TKI (vandetanib) for females with relapsed EOC could make little if any difference in general success (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to at least one 1.95; one research; 129 individuals; low\certainty proof) and could make little if any difference in development\free success (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to at least one 1.42; one research; 129 individuals; very low\certainty proof). In dealing with individuals with relapse, providing EGFR TKI may boost some toxicities somewhat, such as serious rash (risk percentage (RR) 13.63, 95% CI 0.78 to 236.87; one research; 125 individuals; very low\certainty proof). Standard of living data Gardiquimod TFA weren’t designed for Gardiquimod TFA meta\evaluation. Anti\EGFR antibody treatment in relapsed EOC may or might not change lives to overall success (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to at least one 1.18; four research; 658 individuals; moderate\certainty proof) and could or might not possess any Gardiquimod TFA influence on development\free success (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to at least one 1.16; four research; 658 individuals; low\certainty proof). Anti\EGFR antibody treatment might or might not boost unwanted effects, including serious nausea and/or throwing up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.89; three research; 503 individuals; low\certainty proof), severe exhaustion (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.66 to at least one 1.73; I2 = 0%; four research; 652 individuals; low\certainty proof), and hypokalaemia (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.06; I2 = 0%; three research; 522 individuals; low\certainty proof). Serious diarrhoea rates had been heterogeneous across research (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.59 to 13.89; four research; 652 individuals; low\certainty proof), and subgroup evaluation revealed that serious diarrhoea was much more likely with pertuzumab (RR 6.37, 95% CI 1.89 to 21.45; I2 = 0%; three research; 432 individuals; low\certainty proof) than with seribantumab treatment (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23; I2 = 0%; one research; 220 individuals; very low\certainty proof). Standard of living data had been reported, and we were not able to mix them in a meta\evaluation. Authors’ conclusions Current proof shows that an anti\EGFR solitary\agent natural treatment (EGFR TKI or anti\EGFR antibody) makes little if any difference to success, either as maintenance treatment after 1st\range chemotherapy or in colaboration with chemotherapy in CXCL5 repeated cancers. Anti\EGFR therapy.