Different administration methods of endostar combined with second-line chemotherapy in advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and the side effects of different endostar administration methods in patients with advanced malignancy who underwent second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

98 patients with advanced malignancies were divided into 2 groups based on the delivery methods of endostar, including drip intravenous administration of endostar (DE) group and continuous intravenous administration of endostar (CE) group. Response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), and quality of life (QOL) of the patients were examined to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy, and toxicity reactions were analyzed to evaluate the adverse effects.

RESULTS

Compared with the DE group, the therapeutic efficacy of CE has been slightly improved, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Additionally, no different incidence rate was observed in toxic reactions, including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and hepatic function damage, between the DE and CE groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, no significant difference was observed between the traditional intravenous drip of endostar group and the intravenous drip followed by continuous pumping of endostar group in the patients with advanced malignancies.