Objective To systematically review the clinical response and partial adverse effects of endostar plus chemotherapy for patients with unresected non small cell lung cancer. Methods The clinical trials of endostar plus chemotherapy for unresected non small cell lung cancers published before March 2, 2010 were searched in The Cochrane Library, Medline, EMbase, Pubmed, CBM, CNKI, VIP and so on. According to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions, the quality of clinical trials was evaluated by two reviewers independently, and the meta-analysis was conducted by using Revman 5.0 software. Results The endostar as an endostatin was developed by our country, so the relevant RCTs were not found in foreign databases. Fourteen studies involving 1 219 patients were included. All studies adopted random method but no blind method was mentioned in detail. The results of meta-analysis indicated that the rate of clinical response and clinical benefit of the endostar plus chemotherapy group was significantly higher than that of the chemotherapy alone group (RR=1.76, 95%CI 1.47 to 2.09; RR=1.43, 95%CI 1.10 to1.86; respectively). The incidence rate of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower of the endostar plus chemotherapy group than that of the chemotherapy alone group (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.96). The incidence rates of hypoleukemia, anaemia, nausea and vomiting and hepatic and renal function damage were not significantly different between the two groups (RR=0.94, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.06; RR=0.94, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.13; RR=1.04, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.18; RR=0.63, 95%CI 0.25 to 1.60; respectively). Conclusion Endostar plus chemotherapy can improve the rate of clinical response and clinical benefit, and can relieve partial adverse effects of chemotherapy.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Endostar combined with chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Endostar combined with chemotherapy for NSCLC were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, VIP, CNKI, CBMdisc and other electronic databases. The quality of RCTs meeting inclusion criteria was evaluated and the data were extracted; meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5.1 software, and then the GRADE System was used to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Results Among the 18 RCTs involving 1 825 cases included, 1 816 cases met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that: compared with the single chemotherapy, Endostar combined with chemotherapy could increase the total effective rate (RR=1.85, 95%CI 1.56 to 2.11, Plt;0.000 01), and the clinical benefit response (RR=1.21, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.29, Plt;0.000 01), but decrease the incidence risk of leukopenia (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.97, P=0.006). There were no signficant differences between the two groups in decreasing thrombocytopenia (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.74 to 1.03, P=0.10), impaired renal function (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.34, P=0.82), nausea and vomiting (RR=0.92, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.01, P=0.08) and other side effects. Based on GRADE, the level of evidence was Grade C, and the strength of recommendation was 2. Conclusion The present results of clinical trials show that Endostar combined with chemotherapy for NSCLC is a safe and effective therapy without increasing the toxic reaction and side effects; and based on GRADE, the level of evidence was Grade 2C, and the strength of recommendation was 2. However, in view of the limitations of this study, it is suggested that large-scale, high-quality researches on basic and clinical fields should be performed to further verify the above conclusion by critical outcome indicators.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of intrapleural injection of endostar combined with cisplatin in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with malignant pleural effusion. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about endostar combined with cisplatin for NSCLC with malignant pleural effusion from inception to February 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 610 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: The overall response rate and the improvement rate of quality of life in the endostar combined with cisplatin group were higher than that of the cisplatin alone group (RR=1.71, 95%CI 1.49 to 1.95, P<0.00001; RR=1.68, 95%CI 1.44 to 1.96, P<0.00001, respectively). However, There were no significant differences between two groups in incidence of gastrointestinal reaction, incidence of leucopenia and incidence of thrombocytopenia (all P values>0.05). ConclusionCompared with cisplatin, intrapleural injection of endostar combined with cisplatin can improve the overall response rate and improve the quality of life of NSCLC patients with malignant pleural effusion. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of endostar or carboplatin combined with endostar intracavitary perfusion in the treatment of malignant serous cavity effusion. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 78 cancer patients with malignant serous cavity effusion who received paracentesis and intracavitary endostar, or carboplatin combined with endostar in Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between November 2011 and November 2016. There were 42 males and 36 females at a median age of 62 years ranging from 17 to 78 years. According to treatment methods, 78 patients were divided into two groups, in which 33 patients received intracavitary endostar combined with carboplatin (a combination group, 15 males and 18 females at a median age of 56 years ranging from 17 to 66 years), and 45 patients received intracavitary endostar (an endostar group, 27 males and 18 females at a median age of 63 years ranging from 38 to 78 years). The efficacy and safety of two methods were analyzed and compared. Results The response rate in the combination group was 75.8%, which was higher than that in the endostar group (60.0%, P=0.035). In quality of life improvement, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.113). The incidence of fatigue, myelosuppression and gastrointestinal reactions in the endostar group was significantly lower than that of the combination group (P=0.006, 0.000 and 0.017, respectively). Analysis of long-term efficacy revealed that the median time to progress (TTP) in the combination group and endostar group was 171 days and 143 days, respectively (P=0.030). Conclusion Intracavitary infusion of endostar alone, or carboplatin combined with endostar is effective and tolerable for controlling malignant serous cavity effusion. But for the patients with poor physical state who can not tolerant platinum perfusion, intracavitary infusion of endostar alone can be adopted to control malignant serous cavity effusion.