| Literature DB >> 32194799 |
Hongwei Chen1,2, Xiaojun Yao1,3, Ting Li1,3, Christopher Wai-Kei Lam1,2, Ruonan Zhang1,3, Huixia Zhang1,3, Jue Wang1,3, Wei Zhang1,3, Elaine Lai-Han Leung1,3, Qibiao Wu1,3.
Abstract
Objective: Compound Kushen injection (CKI), one of the commonly used antitumor Chinese patent medicines, has been widely prescribed as adjunctive treatment to platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy for advanced NSCLC remain controversial. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of CKI combined with PBC on patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Compound Kushen injection; meta-analysis.; non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC); platinum-based chemotherapy; systematic review
Year: 2020 PMID: 32194799 PMCID: PMC7052862 DOI: 10.7150/jca.40267
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Principal characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Reference | Design | Sample size | Outcomes measure | Treatment group | Control group (Chemotherapy regimen) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Cycle number ofCKI plus PBC | |||||
| Ai XY, 2016 | RCT | 68/68 | ORR, DCR, PFS, toxic effects | CKI + DP | 2 | DP |
| Chen H, 2012 | RCT | 34/34 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 3 | TP |
| Chen H, 2009 | RCT | 31/31 | ORR, DCR | CKI + EP | 2 | EP |
| Chen LG, 2011 | RCT | 40/40 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + DC | 2 | DC |
| Chen WF, 2015 | RCT | 53/52 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + NP | 2 | NP |
| Dong J, 2012 | RCT | 40/40 | ORR, DCR | CKI + PP | 4 | PP |
| Duan P, 2009 | RCT | 72/71 | ORR, DCR, toxic effects | CKI + GP | 3 | GP |
| Hei X, 2016 | RCT | 34/34 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 3 | TP |
| Hu AL, 2014 | RCT | 46/46 | ORR, DCR, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 3 | TP |
| Huang ZF, 2007 | RCT | 30/30 | ORR, DCR | CKI + NP | 2 | NP |
| Li CJ, 2011 | RCT | 40/40 | ORR, DCR | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Liu GH, 2012 | RCT | 60/60 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Liu YT, 2010 | RCT | 32/32 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Liu Y, 2009 | RCT | 44/40 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Long SP, 2008 | RCT | 60/57 | ORR, DCR, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Lu WL, 2017 | RCT | 60/60 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + GP | 4 | GP |
| Lu Y, 2005 | RCT | 32/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + EP | 3 | EP |
| Pang DS, 2011 | RCT | 32/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 3 | TP |
| Sang XW, 2012 | RCT | 54/52 | ORR, DCR, QOL, 1-year survival rate, toxic effects | CKI + NP | 2 | NP |
| Song Y, 2014 | RCT | 30/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Su WZ, 2007 | RCT | 50/30 | ORR, DCR, toxic effects | CKI + NP | 2 | NP |
| Wang ZX, 2009 | RCT | 30/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Wang H, 2009 | RCT | 76/68 | ORR, DCR, toxic effects | CKI + TC | 2 | TC |
| Wang HJ, 2012 | RCT | 40/38 | ORR, DCR | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Wang LY, 2009 | RCT | 45/45 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + NP | 4 | NP |
| Wang SF, 2016 | RCT | 51/46 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Wang YJ, 2015 | RCT | 30/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + TP | 4 | TP |
| Wang YB, 2015 | RCT | 56/52 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Wu YJ, 2011 | RCT | 34/42 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + TP/GP | 2 | TP/GP |
| Wu HJ, 2006 | RCT | 43/44 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + NP | 3 | NP |
| Xiao P, 2012 | RCT | 53/50 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Xu YQ, 2007 | RCT | 36/30 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + TP | 2 | TP |
| Yu ZG, 2012 | RCT | 50/40 | ORR, DCR, QOL, toxic effects | CKI + GC | 2 | GC |
| Zhang JW, 2015 | RCT | 60/60 | ORR, DCR, QOL | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Zhang JJ, 2015 | RCT | 42/42 | ORR, DCR, 1-year survival rate, 2-year survival rate | CKI + TP | 3 | TP |
| Zhao K, 2012 | RCT | 43/43 | ORR, DCR | CKI + GP | 2 | GP |
| Zhou X, 2010 | RCT | 39/35 | ORR, DCR, QOL, 1-year survival rate, toxic effects | CKI+ GP | 2 | GP |
CKI: Compound Kushen injection, DC: Docetaxel plus carboplatin, DCR: Disease control rate, DP: Docetaxel plus cisplatin, EP: Etoposide plus cisplatin, GC: Gemcitabine plus carboplatin, GP: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin, NP: Vinorelbine plus cisplatin, ORR: Objective Response Rate, PBC: Platinum-based chemotherapy, PFS: Progression-free survival, PP: Pemetrexed plus cisplatin, QOL: Quality of life, RCT: Randomized controlled trial, TC: Paclitaxel plus carboplatin, T/C: Treatment group/control group, TP: Paclitaxel plus cisplatin.
Figure 1Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) search diagram. RCT = randomized controlled trial.
The methodologic quality of the included trials assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
| Reference | Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Blinding of outcome assessment | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | Other bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ai XY, 2016 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Chen H, 2009 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Chen LG, 2011 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Chen H, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Chen WF, 2015 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Dong J, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Duan P, 2009 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Hei X, 2016 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Hu AL, 2014 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Huang ZF, 2007 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Li CJ, 2011 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Liu Y, 2009 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Liu YT, 2010 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Liu GH, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Long SP, 2008 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Lu Y, 2005 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Lu WL, 2017 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Pang DS, 2011 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Sang XW, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Song Y, 2014 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Su WZ, 2007 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang LY, 2009 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang H, 2009 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang ZX, 2009 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang HJ, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang SF, 2016 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang YJ, 2015 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wang YB, 2015 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wu HJ, 2006 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Wu YJ, 2011 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Xiao P, 2012 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Xu YQ, 2007 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Yu ZG, 2012 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Zhang JJ, 2015 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Zhang JW, 2015 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Zhao K, 2012 | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
| Zhou X, 2010 | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? |
+ = low risk of bias; ? = unclear risk of bias; - = high risk of bias.
Figure 2Risk of bias graph.
Figure 3Risk of bias summary.
Summary of the meta-analysis (pooled data across categories in the control group).
| Outcome or Subgroup | Studies | Participants | Statistical Method | Effect Estimate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCR | 37 | 3272 | Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.11 [1.07, 1.15] | < 0.00001* |
| Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.73 [1.45, 2.07] | < 0.00001* | |||
| Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.06, 0.11] | < 0.00001* | |||
| ORR | 37 | 3272 | Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.30 [1.20, 1.40] | < 0.00001* |
| Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.62 [1.41, 1.87] | < 0.00001* | |||
| Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.08, 0.15] | < 0.00001* | |||
| QOL | 23 | 1924 | Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.73 [1.55, 1.92] | < 0.00001* |
| Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 2.78 [2.29, 3.37] | < 0.00001* | |||
| Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.23 [0.19, 0.27] | < 0.00001* | |||
| 1-year survival rate | 3 | 134 | Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.51 [1.18, 1.94] | 0.001* |
| Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 2.35 [1.42, 3.88] | 0.0008* | |||
| Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.21 [0.09, 0.32] | 0.0005* | |||
| Grade 3-4 toxicity | 24 | 6842 | Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.42 [0.37, 0.49] | < 0.00001* |
| Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.35 [0.30, 0.41] | < 0.00001* | |||
| Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) | -0.09 [-0.11, -0.08] | < 0.00001* |
DCR: Disease control rate, ORR: Objective Response Rate, QOL: Quality of life, CI: Confidence Interval.
Figure 4Forest plots showing a significant improvement in the DCR in the experimental group compared with that of the control group. CI: Confidence Interval; CKI: Compound Kushen injection, PBC: platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 5Forest plots showing a significant improvement in the ORR in the experimental group compared with that of the control group. CI: Confidence Interval; CKI: Compound Kushen injection, PBC: platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 6Forest plots showing a significant improvement in the QOL in the experimental group compared with that of the control group. CI: Confidence Interval; CKI: Compound Kushen injection, PBC: platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 7Forest plots showing a significant improvement in 1-year survival rate in the experimental group compared with that of the control group. CI: Confidence Interval; CKI: Compound Kushen injection, PBC: platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 8Forest plots showing a significant reduction of severe (grade 3 and 4) toxicities in the experimental group compared with those of the control group. CI: Confidence Interval; CKI: Compound Kushen injection, PBC: platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 9Funnel plots showing possible publication bias due to small-study effects. (A) Funnel plots of the DCR. (B) Funnel plots of the ORR. (C) Funnel plots of QOL. (D) Funnel plots of severe toxicities. RR: Relative Risk.
Figure 10Trial sequential analysis of the DCR showing that the required information size had been reached and that Compound Kushen injection (CKI) plus PBC was significantly superior to the intervention in the control group. PBC, platinum-based chemotherapy.
Figure 11Meta-regression analysis showing that the DCR was not improved with an increased cycle number of Compound Kushen injection (CKI).