Efficacy and safety of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel versus paclitaxel/docetaxel in the treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis. Issue 21 (7th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Zhe; Liu, Zhibao; Wu, Yuanyuan; Li, Huarui; Sun, Zhen; Han, Chenggang; Zhang, Xiaoling; Zhang, Jinghua
• Is Part Of: Thoracic cancer. Volume 12:Issue 21(2021)
• Page Start: 2838
• Page End: 2848
• Publication Date: 2021-10-07
• Subjects: apatinib -- meta‐analysis -- non‐small cell lung cancer -- paclitaxel/docetaxel; Chest -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Chest -- Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.99494005
• DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.14131
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-7706

Abstract

Abstract: Background: To investigate the efficacy and safety of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel versus paclitaxel/docetaxel in the treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through pooling of open published data. Methods: The electronic databases of Medline (1960–2021.5), Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE(1980–2021.5) and Wan fang (1986–2021.5) were systematically searched by two reviewers to identify the relevant clinical trials related to the above subject. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and drug relevant adverse reactions were pooled and demonstrated by risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed by I‐square test. The publication bias was evaluated by Egger's line regression test and demonstrated by Begg's funnel plot. Results: Eleven prospective studies were included in the meta‐analysis. The pooled results indicated that the ORR (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.32–2.00, p < 0.05) and DCR (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18–1.41, p < 0.05) of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel was significantly higher than that of the paclitaxel/docetaxel group for advanced NSCLC, respectively. The drug‐related adverse reaction was not statistically different between apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel with regard to the hand‐foot syndrome, gastrointestinal reaction, thrombocytopenia, anemia and leukocytopenia ( p all > 0.05) except for hypertension (RR = 3.60, 95% CI: 1.26–10.31, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis also indicated that the hypertension and hand‐foot syndrome in apatinib + paclitaxel/docetaxel were higher than that of the paclitaxel/docetaxel group with a statistical difference ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: Apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel was superior to paclitaxel/docetaxel for ORR and DCR. However, combined treatment with apatinib appears to increase the risk of a patient developing an adverse reaction, especially hypertension and hand‐foot syndrome. Abstract : All the included 11 clinical trials evaluated the ORR between apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel versus paclitaxel/docetaxel in treatment NSCLC. And there was no statistical heterogeneity across the 11 studies (I 2 =0.0%, P=0.931). Therefore, the ORR was pooled in fixed effect model with RR=1.62 (95%CI:1.32‐2.00, P<0.05), which demonstrated that advanced NSCLC patients received apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel were superior to paclitaxel/docetaxel in the aspect of ORR