BackgroundDespite the fact that numerous clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated the synergistic effects of combining antiangiogenic or chemotherapy with immunotherapy, no data have been found to indicate that combination therapy is more effective and safer as second-line therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively compared the effectiveness and safety of ICIs plus rh-endostatin to ICIs plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The evaluation indicators of this study were progression-free survival (PFS), safety profile, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and 1-year overall survival (OS).ResultsThe median PFS with immunotherapy plus rh-endostatin (IE) was 7.10 months (95% CI, 4.64 to 9.56) versus 5.13 months (95% CI, 4.29 to 5.97) with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (IC) (HR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.95). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 7.5% of the IE group versus 25.0% of the IC group. The ORR in the IE group was 35.0% versus 20.8% in the IC group (P = 0.137), and the DCR in the IE group was 92.5% versus 77.1% in the IC group (P = 0.049). The 1-year OS rate for the IE group was 69.4%, which was higher than the 61.4% of the IC group.ConclusionOur study showed that ICI therapy combined with endostatin therapy exhibits high efficacy and safety, suggesting that such a combination might be a viable treatment option for patients with pre-treated NSCLC in the future.

Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of combination of PD-1 inhibitors, recombinant human endostatin (Rh-endostatin) and chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A total of 100 patients with advanced NSCLC were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed (58 in the group receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus Rh-endostatin and chemotherapy; 42 in the group receiving Rh-endostatin and chemotherapy). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results: Patients in the group receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus Rh-endostatin and chemotherapy had significantly improved progression-free survival (10.2 vs 6.5 months; p < 0.001) and objective response rate (67.2 vs 42.9%; p = 0.015), with acceptable toxicity. Conclusion: Our study showed the superiority of combination therapy of PD-1 inhibitors and Rh-endostatin as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC.

e21133 Background: Despite the fact that numerous clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated the synergistic effects of combining antiangiogenic or chemotherapy with immunotherapy, no data have been found to indicate that combination therapy is more effective and safer as second-line therapy. Methods: We retrospectively compared the effectiveness and safety of ICIs plus rh-endostatin to ICIs plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The evaluation indicators were progression-free survival (PFS), safety profile, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and 1-year survival rate. Results: The median PFS with immunotherapy plus rh-endostatin (IE) was 7.10 months (95% CI, 4.64 to 9.56) versus 5.13 months (95% CI, 4.29 to 5.97) with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (IC) (HR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.95). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 7.5% of the IE group versus 25.0% of the IC group. The ORR in the IE group was 35.0% versus 20.8% in the IC group ( P = 0.137), and the DCR in the IE group was 92.5% versus 77.1% in the IC group ( P = 0.049). The 1-year survival rate for the IE group was 69.4%, which was higher than the IC group's rate of 61.4%. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that ICIs in conjunction with endostatin therapy, demonstrate high efficacy and safety, suggesting that such a combination of therapy may be a viable treatment option for pretreated NSCLC patients in the future.

Determining the bond strength between asphalt and the aggregate base material is an intuitive way to ascertain the adhesion. In this study, we determined the bond strength between different types of asphalt and aggregates. First, the influence of these types of asphalt and aggregates on the bond strength was evaluated. Second, the bond strength of lime aggregate-based material and five types of asphalt in dry and immersion states was measured, and the influence of water on the bond strength was investigated. Third, the asphalt was extracted into aromatic, saturated, colloidal, and asphaltene by an asphalt component separation test, and the bond strength between each asphalt component and aggregate was tested. Finally, for the specimens with adhesive failure, the bond strength was retested to evaluate the self-healing ability of the adhesive. The results show that adhesion is influenced by asphalt and aggregate types as well as water immersion. The adhesion between asphalt and aggregate is primarily gum-based, followed by aromatics. After adhesion failure, the adhesion recovers to a certain extent (that is, it self-heals), but the healing rate decreases with the increase in test frequency; the adhesion tends to be stable after the third test.