SynthesisBMC cancer2020
Endostar continuous versus intermittent intravenous infusion combined with chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis including non-randomized studies.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Evaluation Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Recombinant Human Endostatin Combined with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Pooled it
- Homoharringtonine inhibits growth and migration in non-small cell lung cancer via PDIA4-mediated modulation of autophagy and EMT.Archives of pharmacal research · 2026Article
- Case Report: Long-term survival in advanced PD-L1-high squamous cell lung cancer following severe immune-related cardiotoxicity.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of an EGFR-related risk signature identifiedTranslational cancer research · 2025Article
- Case report: Combination therapy of envafolimab with endostar for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with low PD-L1 expression.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Advancing perspectives on the off-label use of anticancer drugs: an updated classification and exploration of categories.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Rh-endostatin plus camrelizumab and chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter retrospective study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Recombinant Endostatin as a Potential Radiosensitizer in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus recombinant human endostatin in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2022Article
- Endostatin induces normalization of blood vessels in colorectal cancer and promotes infiltration of CD8+ T cells to improve anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Intravenous Endostar Treatment Combined With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Endostar Plus Apatinib Successfully Achieved Long Term Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Ovarian Cancer: A Case Report and Literature Review.OncoTargets and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth 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.
methodsRCTs, 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.
resultsFinally 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.