The Evaluation of Durative Transfusion of Endostar Combined with Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Li, Xiaoqin; Gu, Guomin; Soliman, Faris; Sanders, Andrew; Wang, Xiuli; Liu, Chunling

doi:10.1159/000493098

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is interesting to examine the results from a t-test using log-transformation of read counts following one of the four normalization methods. As expected, the results show there is no difference between the UQ and UQ-pgQ2 methods since the median scaling factor estimated for each gene across samples in UQ-pgQ2 was canceled while applying a t-test [50]. Although UQ/UQ-pgQ2 performed relatively better than TMM and RLE, with a specificity of 48.7%, there was a tradeoff with lower power of 93.1%, consistent with previous reports [36,37].…”

Section: Statistical Analysis Of Maqc2 and Maqc3 For The Combined Metsupporting

confidence: 89%

Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies

Cooper

O’Toole

et al. 2020

BMC Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: High-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has evolved as an important analytical tool in molecular biology. Although the utility and importance of this technique have grown, uncertainties regarding the proper analysis of RNA-seq data remain. Of primary concern, there is no consensus regarding which normalization and statistical methods are the most appropriate for analyzing this data. The lack of standardized analytical methods leads to uncertainties in data interpretation and study reproducibility, especially with studies reporting high false discovery rates. In this study, we compared a recently developed normalization method, UQ-pgQ2, with three of the most frequently used alternatives including RLE (relative log estimate), TMM (Trimmed-mean M values) and UQ (upper quartile normalization) in the analysis of RNA-seq data. We evaluated the performance of these methods for gene-level differential expression analysis by considering the factors, including: 1) normalization combined with the choice of a Wald test from DESeq2 and an exact test/QL (Quasi-likelihood) F-Test from edgeR; 2) sample sizes in two balanced two-group comparisons; and 3) sequencing read depths. Results: Using the MAQC RNA-seq datasets with small sample replicates, we found that UQ-pgQ2 normalization combined with an exact test can achieve better performance in term of power and specificity in differential gene expression analysis. However, using an intra-group analysis of false positives from real and simulated data, we found that a Wald test performs better than an exact test when the number of sample replicates is large and that a QL Ftest performs the best given sample sizes of 5, 10 and 15 for any normalization. The RLE, TMM and UQ methods performed similarly given a desired sample size. Conclusion: We found the UQ-pgQ2 method combined with an exact test/QL F-test is the best choice in order to control false positives when the sample size is small. When the sample size is large, UQ-pgQ2 with a QL F-test is a better choice for the type I error control in an intra-group analysis. We observed read depths have a minimal impact for differential gene expression analysis based on the simulated data.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Analysis Of Maqc2 and Maqc3 For The Combined Metsupporting

confidence: 89%

Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies

Cooper

O’Toole

et al. 2020

BMC Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is necessary to closely observe and monitor cardiac toxicity during Endostar administration. The cardiotoxicity of Endostar is reported to be slight and reversible; however, close observation of the heart rate, electrocardiogram, myocardial enzymology markers, and cardiac ultrasound of patients during such therapy is recommended.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Endostar continuous versus intermittent intravenous infusion in combination with first‐line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Intravenous infusion of Endostar for three to four hours per day for 14 days reduces patient compliance and affects quality of life. Continuous intravenous infusion (CI) represents a novel method of administration; however, it is unclear whether it is effective and safe when compared to the traditional method. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) administered CI (20 patients) or intermittent intravenous infusion (II, 49 patients) of Endostar combined with first‐line chemotherapy. Three patients in the II group discontinued therapy because of adverse effects. Results Median progression‐free survival was 6.0 months in the CI group and 3.8 months in the II group, with no significant difference (P = 0.1). The objective response and disease control rates were also similar in the CI and II groups (40.0 vs. 32.6%, P = 0.562; 65 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.714, respectively). Conclusion CI of Endostar combined with first‐line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC had similar progression‐free survival, objective response, and overall response rates as II, with tolerable adverse effects.

show abstract

“…Previous studies in other fields have shown favorable feasibility of CIV Endostar. In the report by Li et al 18 advanced NSCLC treated with CIV Endostar combined with chemotherapy showed a significantly higher disease control rate (86.2% vs. 70.7%, P < 0.01), longer median PFS (six months vs. four months, P = 0.037) and median OS (17.5 months vs. 13.5 months, P = 0.034) compared with IV Endostar combined with chemotherapy. The trend seen in the single-center retrospective study by Cheng et al19 was similar to that in the report by Li et al Yao et al 20 retrospectively compared the efficacy of CIV Endostar to IV Endostar in advanced or metastatic lung squamous cell carcinoma, both combined with gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy (GP regimen).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Previous studies in other fields have shown favorable feasibility of CIV Endostar. In the report by Li et al . advanced NSCLC treated with CIV Endostar combined with chemotherapy showed a significantly higher disease control rate (86.2% vs. 70.7%, P < 0.01), longer median PFS (six months vs. four months, P = 0.037) and median OS (17.5 months vs. 13.5 months, P = 0.034) compared with IV Endostar combined with chemotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

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

Hui

Peng

et al. 2020

Thoracic Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Evaluation of Durative Transfusion of Endostar Combined with Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies

Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies

Comparison of Endostar continuous versus intermittent intravenous infusion in combination with first‐line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About