ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of Kanglaite combined with gemcitabine in treating patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Kanglaite ombined with gemcitabine treating advanced NSCLC was retrieved in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2013), CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data from the dates of their establishment to September 2013. Literature screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction and methodological quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was then conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 506 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that:a) Kanglaite injection combined with gemcitabine chemotherapy increased short-term effectiveness (OR=1.85, 95%CI 1.29 to 2.65, P=0.000 8), patients' quality of life (OR=3.02, 95%CI 1.90 to 4.78, P < 0.000 1), and immune function (MD=0.64, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.97, P=0.000 1); and reduced the incidences of leukopenia decrease (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.47, P < 0.000 01), nausea and vomiting (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.73, P=0.000 3), bone marrow suppression (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.45, P < 0.000 01), and liver and renal impairments (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.68, P=0.000 3), all with significant differences. b) Both groups were alike in reducing thrombocytopenia (OR=0.67, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.14, P=0.14) without significant differences. ConclusionApplying Kanglaite injection combined with gemcitabine in treating patients with advanced NSCLC could increase short-term effectiveness, improve patients' quality of life and immune function; and reduce the incidences of adverse reaction caused by chemotherapy. However, it has no obvious advantage in reducing thrombocytopenia. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more larger sample size, multicenter, high quality RCT are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of 125I seed interstitial implantation for lung cancer. MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to February 2014 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 125I seed interstitial implantation in the treatment of lung cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk bias of included studies, and then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsA total of 23 RCTs involving 1 492 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:the effective rate (OR=3.43,95%CI 2.71,4.33,P<0.000 01), 1 year survival rate (OR=2.83, 95%CI 2.03 to 3.95, P<0.000 01) and 2 year survival rate (OR=2.49, 95%CI 1.60 to 3.88, P<0.000 01) in the 125I seed interstitial implantation group were higher than those in the control group, but the rate of postoperative complications was higher than that of control group (OR=19.72, 95%CI 11.63 to 33.45, P<0.000 01). In addition, there were no significant differences between both groups in the 3 year survival rate (OR=2.45, 95%CI 0.21 to 28.89, P=0.48) and the adverse reaction rate (OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.05, P=0.09). Conclusion125I seed interstitial implantation is effective in the treatment of lung cancer. It can improve treatment efficiency and short-time survival rate, but may increase the rate of complications such as pneumothorax, seed malposition, bleeding and so on. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality and larger sample studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.