Influence of different drug delivery methods for Endostar combined with a gemcitabine/cisplatin regimen in locally advanced or metastatic lung squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective observational study

The Rate of Infusion Represents an Important Aspect of Administering Anticancer Agents

Background

Infusion rate is one of the essential elements that should be included in all intravenous orders. Patients may experience adverse consequences or risks associated with inappropriate infusion. Meanwhile, there is growing pressure on the chemotherapy unit to deliver treatment quickly, efficiently, and safely, and thus it is very necessary to improve the chemotherapy process and service to cancer patients. Clinicians should consider how to further standardize infusion therapy, and innovate new infusion strategies to increase efficacy, reduce toxicity, improve patient satisfaction and save health resource costs. Sporadic studies have evaluated the effects of infusion rates of anticancer agents on clinical outcomes, economic benefits, and administration efficiency. However, an update review has not been available.

Methods

Relevant literature was identified by search of PubMed until September 2023.

Results

Infusion rates may have significant effect on the efficacy of anticancer agents (e.g., methotrexate, fluorouracil, and arsenic trioxide). Slow infusion is safer for platinum compounds, doxorubicin and carmustine, whereas fast infusion is safer than slow infusion of gemcitabine. Optimal flow rates of paclitaxel and fluorouracil are based on the balance between multiple risks of toxicity. Optimal infusion rate may bring economic benefits. If efficacy and safety are not compromised, shortened infusion may result in higher patient satisfaction, improved institutional efficiency and more nursing time available for other activities (e.g., biosimilar products, endostar). Other concerns about infusion rate include clinical indications (eg, paclitaxel and rituximab, methotrexate), severity and type of hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., platinum compounds), formulation features (e.g., paclitaxel, doxorubicin), and genetic polymorphism (e.g., gemcitabine, methotrexate).

Conclusion

The latest knowledge of infusion rate concerns will enhance the appropriateness and accuracy in intravenous administration. Interdisciplinary teams should collaborate and implement relevant risk management and healthcare policy. It is worthwhile to conduct comparative studies of intravenous therapy with different infusion speeds.

Effects of Camrelizumab Combined with First-Line Chemotherapy on Serum SCC, VEGF Levels, and Adverse Reactions in Patients with Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

Objective

To study the effects of camrelizumab accompanied by first-line chemotherapy on serum SCC, VEGF levels, and adverse reactions in people undergoing advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods

Data sources of the study subjects were 60 people suffering from advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung hospitalized from January 2018 to October 2019. They were assigned to two groups, including the control group and the observation group in a random manner, and each consisted of 30 patients. Those in the observation group received camrelizumab (SHR-1210), and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) chemotherapy were treated in the control group. Finally, according to the results, we compare the data of patients in both groups so as to find out the similarities and differences.

Results

Among them, the effective efficiency of clinical treatment in the control group reached 36.67%, and that in the observation group reached 56.67%. Intuitively, it can be concluded that the control group showed lower results than the observed group. The observed group turned out to have higher periodic survival and progression free survival (PFS) of patients than the other group. During and after the cycle treatment, the data of SCC and VEGF were reduced to some extent, but the control group appeared to have a more evident reduction rate than the other group.

Conclusion

SHR-1210 combined with chemotherapy has a considerable effect in practical application and has excellent clinical performance.

Continuous intravenous infusion of recombinant human endostatin using infusion pump plus chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers in the world with the highest incidence and mortality rate among all cancers. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 80% of primary lung cancer. However, efficacy and safety of the current regimens for NSCLC is unsatisfactory. Therefore, there has been an increasing urgency for development of potential therapeutic therapies for NSCLC.

AIM

To investigate the therapeutic outcomes and safety of continuous intravenous infusion of recombinant human endostatin (Rh-endostain) using an infusion pump in retreated advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

Patients with retreated advanced NSCLC who were admitted to Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital from October 2017 to April 2019 were recruited. These patients received continuous intravenous infusion of Rh-endostain using an infusion pump. Objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and incidences of adverse events (AEs) were analyzed after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients with retreated advanced NSCLC were included, and all of them were evaluated. In these patients, ORR was 22.2%, CBR was 84.4%, and mPFS was 5.3 mo. The following AEs were observed, decreased hemoglobin (34 cases, 75.6%), nausea/vomiting (32 cases, 71.1%), elevated transaminase (24 cases, 53.3%), leukopenia (16 cases, 35.6%), thrombocytopenia (14 cases, 31.1%), and constipation (1 case, 3.4%). None of the patients had leukopenia, nausea /vomiting, and constipation of grade III and above.

CONCLUSION

The patients showed improved adherence to 5-d continuous intravenous infusion of Rh-endostain using an infusion pump. Favorable efficacy and safety of this treatment regimen were achieved in retreated advanced NSCLC.

A rapid response of lung squamous cell carcinoma following treatment with sintilimab combined with recombinant humane endostatin injection and nab-paclitaxel in an elderly patient: A case report

RATIONALE

At present, the prognosis of patients with giant lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) is poor, and there is no safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with large LSCC.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Here, we reported a 77-year-old man admitted to the hospital with cough for 3 months and significant chest pain. Computed tomography (CT) imaging showed a large mass in the left lung with pleural effusion.

DIAGNOSES

Chest CT scan revealed a 12.5 cm × 7.3 cm mass in the left upper lobe adjacent to the pulmonary vein, with left pleural effusion. Pulmonary tumor markers were significantly elevated, and CT-guided percutaneous lung mass biopsy specimens showed LSCC.

INTERVENTIONS

After diagnosis, the patient was treated with sintilimab combined with endostar and nab-paclitaxel. After 2 cycles of treatment, the lung mass in the patient shrank rapidly and the clinical symptoms were relieved.

OUTCOMES

The patient's tumor dramatically shrank, and the pleural effusion was decreased after 4 cycles of treatment without any adverse effects. Meanwhile, the high-level tumor marker resumed normal.

LESSONS

Sintilimab combined with endostar and nab-paclitaxel may be a good treatment option for lung squamous cell cancer, especially for that in elderly patients.

Different administration methods of endostar combined with second-line chemotherapy in advanced malignancies

Background

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and the side effects of different endostar administration methods in patients with advanced malignancy who underwent second-line chemotherapy.

Methods

98 patients with advanced malignancies were divided into 2 groups based on the delivery methods of endostar, including drip intravenous administration of endostar (DE) group and continuous intravenous administration of endostar (CE) group. Response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), and quality of life (QOL) of the patients were examined to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy, and toxicity reactions were analyzed to evaluate the adverse effects.

Results

Compared with the DE group, the therapeutic efficacy of CE has been slightly improved, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Additionally, no different incidence rate was observed in toxic reactions, including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and hepatic function damage, between the DE and CE groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In conclusion, no significant difference was observed between the traditional intravenous drip of endostar group and the intravenous drip followed by continuous pumping of endostar group in the patients with advanced malignancies.

Endostar continuous versus intermittent intravenous infusion combined with chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis including non-randomized studies

Background

Both intermittent intravenous (IIV) infusion and continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion of Endostar are widely used for NSCLC in China. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CIV of Endostar versus IIV in combination with first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

RCTs, NRCTs and cohort studies which compared CIV of Endostar with IIV in advanced NSCLC patients and reported efficacy or safety outcomes were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis for short-term efficacy and safety outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes.

Results

Finally nine studies involving 597 patients were included, containing two RCTs, three NRCTs and four cohort studies. For short-term efficacy, moderate quality of evidence showed that there were no significant differences between CIV of Endostar and IIV in objective response rate (ORR; RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91–1.98, P = 0.14) and disease control rate (DCR; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94–1.30, P = 0.21). Very low quality of evidence indicated that CIV of Endostar significantly improved both overall survival (OS; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48–0.99, P = 0.046) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.93, P = 0.01) compared with IIV. As for safety outcomes, moderate quality of evidence found that CIV of Endostar significantly reduced the risk of myelosuppression (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.96, P = 0.03) and cardiovascular toxicity (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.78, P = 0.02) compared with IIV.

Conclusions

In advanced NSCLC, compared with IIV, CIV of Endostar had similar short-term efficacy, and substantially lower risk of myelosuppression and cardiovascular toxicity. Although very low quality of evidence supported the survival benefit of CIV compared with IIV, large RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate survival benefits. Caution should be given for off-label use of CIV of Endostar.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-020-07527-4.

Different administration routes of recombinant human endostatin combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy might lead to different efficacy and safety profile in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Updated follow-up results from two phase II trials

Background

There are two main choices of administration route of recombinant human endostatin (Endostar) available and the treatment options of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) have changed over time. The aim of this study was to observe the long‐term efficacy and safety of different administration routes of Endostar combined with CCRT.

Methods

Patients with unresectable stage III non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from two phase II trials were included as two cohorts. Both were treated with Endostar combined with CCRT. Endostar was administrated by intravenous injection (7.5 mg/m²/day, seven days) in the IV arm and by continuous intravenous pumping (7.5 mg/m²/24 hours, 120 hours) in the CIV arm.

Results

A total of 48 patients were included in the IV arm and 67 patients in the CIV arm. The median progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), local recurrence‐free survival (LRFS) and distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) in the IV arm and CIV arm were 9.9 months versus 15.4 months (HR = 0.751, 95% CI 0.487–1.160, P = 0.200), 24.0 months versus 38.5 months (HR = 0.746, 95% CI 0.473–1.178, P = 0.209), 32.3 months versus 27.1 months (HR = 1.193, 95% CI 0.673–2.115, P = 0.546), 20.1 months versus 49.7 months (HR = 0.603, 95% CI 0.351–1.036, P = 0.067). The one, three, five‐year PFS in the IV arm and CIV arm was 45.8% versus 52.9%, 18.3% versus 31.4%, and 18.3% versus 27.7% and the one, three, five‐year OS was 81.2% versus 82.1%, 31.1% versus 50.3%, and 31.1% versus 41%, respectively. Incidence of hematological adverse reactions were numerically lower in the CIV arm than the IV arm.

Conclusions

Endostar delivered by CIV with CCRT may be a better option than IV in terms of potential survival and safety for unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Key points

Significant findings of the study Endostar delivered by continuous intravenous pumping might achieve more favorable survival over intravenous injection and reduce adverse hematological reactions in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC treated with Endostar combined with CCRT.What this study adds The administration route of recombinant human endostatin is also one key factor for survival and safety to consider when treating patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.