-
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2022Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant Folfirinox and Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for BRPC and LAPC is still controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The eligible studies including prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled trial related to Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for patients with BRPC or LAPC up to March 2022 were searched and assessed. Pooled analysis for chemotherapy response rate, resection rate, R0 resection rate, progress free survival, overall survival, and grade 3/4 events of toxicity were performed in the study.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with GNP, Folfirinox had higher resection rate (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.14) and R0 resection rate (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), better PFS (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.55-1.12) and OS (HR=0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and without increasing severe toxicity rate (HR=0.95; 95% CI 0.71-1.28). There are no differences in rate of stable disease (HR=1.06; 95% CI 0.92-1.22) and partial/complete regression (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.59-1.23) between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher resection and R0 resection rate and better PFS and OS results were obtained in Folfirinox group compared with GNP group for patients with BRPC and LAPC. There was no increased severe toxicity rate for Folfirinox compared with GNP.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 36111933
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202209_29656 -
The Journal of International Medical... Apr 2022To undertake a meta-analysis of the treatment effects of different second-line chemotherapy regimens compared with FOLFIRINOX (FOL [folinic acid], F [fluorouracil], IRIN... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To undertake a meta-analysis of the treatment effects of different second-line chemotherapy regimens compared with FOLFIRINOX (FOL [folinic acid], F [fluorouracil], IRIN [irinotecan], OX [oxaliplatin]) after failure of gemcitabine-based first-line therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
This meta-analysis searched electronic databases, including Embase®, Medline, PubMed® and the Cochrane library, for eligible studies that reported the use of FOLFIRINOX and other drug regimens as second-line chemotherapy after failure of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Pooled analyses for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TRAEs) were undertaken.
RESULTS
The analysis included six studies with a total of 858 patients. Compared with the three other second-line regimens, FOLFIRINOX had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52, 0.89) and OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59, 0.86); and a significantly better ORR (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23, 0.80) and DCR (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58, 0.88). However, grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequently reported in patients administered FOLFIRINOX compared with the other three regimens.
CONCLUSION
FOLFIRINOX is recommended as a second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer that have failed on gemcitabine-based first-line therapy.Research Registry number: reviewregistry1300.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 35481414
DOI: 10.1177/03000605221093225 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2022The rising outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world. The development of novel effective antiviral drugs to fight against SARS-CoV-2 is a time cost....
The rising outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world. The development of novel effective antiviral drugs to fight against SARS-CoV-2 is a time cost. As a result, some specific FDA-approved drugs have already been repurposed and authorized for COVID-19 treatment. The repurposed drugs used were either antiviral or non-antiviral drugs. Accordingly, the present review thoroughly focuses on the repurposing efficacy of these drugs including clinical trials experienced, the combination therapies used, the novel methods followed for treatment, and their future perspective. Therefore, drug repurposing was regarded as an effective avenue for COVID-19 treatment. Recently, molnupiravir is a prodrug antiviral medication that was approved in the United Kingdom in November 2021 for the treatment of COVID-19. On the other hand, PF-07321332 is an oral antiviral drug developed by Pfizer. For the treatment of COVID-19, the PF-07321332/ritonavir combination medication is used in Phase III studies and was marketed as Paxlovid. Herein, we represented the almost history of combating COVID-19 from repurposing to the recently available oral anti-SARS-CoV-2 candidates, as a new hope to end the current pandemic.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Drug Approval; Drug Repositioning; Humans; Hydroxylamines; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35321497
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S354841 -
BMJ Open Mar 2022To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.
DISCUSSION
Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35236729
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048502 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2022Various first-line chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have been approved in Japan, including gemcitabine (GEM); fluorouracil,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Various first-line chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have been approved in Japan, including gemcitabine (GEM); fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combination (FOLFIRINOX); GEM plus albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM+NPTX), and S-1 (tegafur + gimeracil + oteracil). However, direct comparisons of these chemotherapy regimens are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer compared with chemotherapy regimens recommended in Japanese guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, the bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, as well as medical journals published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018, were searched for clinical trials comparing chemotherapy regimens.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized 2-arm clinical trials evaluating first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions was followed for data abstractions. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The SIGN 50 Quality Assessment Instrument was used to assess the risk of bias and overall study quality of the selected trials.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) compared with GEM for first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. The Kaplan-Meier curve of GEM from the literature and the estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were used to model the long-term associations to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) (person-months) for OS and PFS of each chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses with multiple functional models were conducted to confirm the long-term estimations.
RESULTS
A total of 22 regimens (25 studies) for OS and a total of 18 regimens (21 studies) for PFS were identified from literature. The total number of participants was 10 186, with 5856 male (57.5%) and 4330 female (42.5%). The FOLFIRINOX and GEM+NPTX regimens were associated with reduction in the risk of death, with an HR of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.41-0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.95) compared with GEM, respectively. The curve estimation also showed that FOLFIRINOX had the largest AUC for survival at 15.49 person-months (range, 13.84-15.51 person-months), followed by GEM+NPTX with 12.36 person-months (range, 10.98-12.59 person-months), GEM+ERLO with 10.84 person-months (range, 9.66-11.23 person-months), S-1 with 8.44 person-months (range, 8.26-9.74 person-months), and GEM with 8.10 person-months (range, 7.93-9.38 person-months).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this network meta-analysis support the relative short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer used clinically in Japan.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Japan; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Leucovorin; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxaliplatin; Oxonic Acid; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Pyridines; Survival Rate; Tegafur; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 35099549
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45515 -
Medicine Dec 2021Recent randomized controlled trials revealed the combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) regime shows promising efficacy in pancreatic cancer patients.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recent randomized controlled trials revealed the combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) regime shows promising efficacy in pancreatic cancer patients. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) with GemCap for pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
The database of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Controster of Controlled Trials, Web of Science was searched for relevant randomized controlled trials before 8 April, 2020. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), 12-month survival rate, progress free survival (PFS), partial response rate (PRR), objective response rate (ORR), and Grade 3/4 toxicities.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials involving 1879 patients were included in this study. The results showed that GemCap significantly improves the OS (hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.037-1.276, P = .008), PFS (hazard ratio = 1.211, 95% CI 1.09-1.344, P = 0), PRR (relative risk (RR) = 0.649, 95% CI 0.488-0.862, P = .003), ORR (RR = 0.605, 95% CI 0.458-0.799, P = 0), and the overall toxicity (RR = 0.708, 95% CI 0.620-0.808, P = .000) compared to Gem alone. However, no significant difference was found in 12-month survival.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a higher incidence of Grade 3/4 toxicity, GemCap was associated with better outcomes of OS, PFS, PRR, ORR, as compared with Gem, which is likely to become a promising therapy for pancreatic cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 35049189
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027870 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Several available therapies for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have demonstrated efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, translation of these results into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several available therapies for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have demonstrated efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, translation of these results into improved care faces several challenges, as a direct comparison of the most pertinent therapies is incomplete.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs, to guide clinical decision-making, and to provide estimates of relative efficiency of the different treatment options (including placebo) and rank the treatments according to their efficiency based on a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies through systematic searches of the following bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); and Embase from January 1947 to December 2020. In addition, we checked trial registries for ongoing or unpublished eligible trials and manually searched for abstracts from scientific and clinical meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies in people with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Multi-arm studies were included in the network meta-analysis using the R-package netmeta. We separately analysed two different outcomes (disease control and progression-free survival) and two types of NET (gastrointestinal and pancreatic NET) in four network meta-analyses. A frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 55 studies in 90 records in the qualitative analysis, reporting 39 primary RCTs and 16 subgroup analyses. We included 22 RCTs, with 4299 participants, that reported disease control and/or progression-free survival in the network meta-analysis. Precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited, although the risk of bias was predominantly low. The network meta-analysis of progression-free survival found nine therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.46]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.80]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.89]), interferon (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.94]), sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.67]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.83]), surufatinib (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.76]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77]); and six therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: 177-Lu-DOTATATE plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.26]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.12 [95%CI, 0.03 to 0.54]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.94]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.93]), surufatinib (HR, 0.33 [95%CI, 0.12 to 0.88]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.76]), with higher efficacy than placebo. Besides everolimus for pancreatic NETs, the results suggested an overall superiority of combination therapies, including somatostatin analogues. The results indicate that NET therapies have a broad range of risk for adverse events and effects on quality of life, but these were reported inconsistently. Evidence from this network meta-analysis (and underlying RCTs) does not support any particular therapy (or combinations of therapies) with respect to patient-centred outcomes (e.g. overall survival and quality of life).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for people with NETs.
Topics: Humans; Indoles; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Positron-Emission Tomography; Pyrimidines; Radionuclide Imaging; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 34822169
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013700.pub2 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 2021Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently been tested in COVID-19. We aim to conduct a systematic review of literature to find out the efficacy and...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently been tested in COVID-19. We aim to conduct a systematic review of literature to find out the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched the electronic database of PubMed, MedRxiv and Google Scholar from inception until October 15, 2021, using MeSH keywords. Ongoing trials of molnupiravir in COVID-19 were additionally searched from the ClinicalTrials.Gov and ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials. We retrieved all the available granular details of phase 1 to 3 studies of molnupiravir in COVID-19. Subsequently we reviewed the results narratively.
RESULTS
Two phase 1 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (DBRPC) studies of molnupiravir showed that 1600 mg daily dose is safe and tolerable, without any serious adverse events up to 5.5 days. One phase 2 DBPRC study found significantly lower time to clearance (RNA negativity) with molnupiravir 800 mg twice daily compared to the placebo (log-rank p value = 0.013) in mild to moderate COVID-19. Interim report of one phase 3 DBRPC study in non-hospitalized COVID-19 found a significant reduction in the risk of hospital admission or death by 50% (p = 0.0012). However, no significant benefit was observed with molnupiravir in the later stage of moderate to severe COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
Molnupiravir is first oral antiviral drug to demonstrate a significant benefit in reducing hospitalization or death in mild COVID-19 and could be an important weapon in the battle against SARS-CoV-2. However, its role in moderate to severe COVID-19 is questionable and more studies are needed.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Cytidine; Hospitalization; Humans; Hydroxylamines; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34742052
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.102329 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2021Treatment outcomes between FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and GNP (gemcitabine with albumin-bound paclitaxel) as first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment outcomes between FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and GNP (gemcitabine with albumin-bound paclitaxel) as first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) were assessed according to ethnic groups categorized as Western or Asian subgroups. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched. Thirteen studies were eligible in this meta-analysis. Overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.20, P = 0.990). However, the Western subgroup showed a higher survival benefit for FOLFIRINOX over GNP (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.95, P = 0.006) whereas the Asian subgroup showed the survival benefit for GNP over FOLFIRINOX (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.60, P = 0.030). Progression free survival was not significantly different between the two regimens in the Western subgroup (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.20, P = 0.950) and the Asian subgroup (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.33, P = 0.110). Occurrence of febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in FOLFIRINOX at both ethnic subgroups; however, that of peripheral neuropathy was significantly higher only in GNP of the Asian subgroup. Therefore, pharmacoethnicity might be a factor worth considering when deciding on a frontline chemotherapeutic regimen although the overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP for metastatic PCs.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Ethnicity; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoplasm Metastasis; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34635731
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99647-5 -
Pharmaceutical Biology Dec 2021Aidi injection is one of the most commonly use antitumor Chinese medicine injections for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It is made from the extraction of ,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Aidi injection is one of the most commonly use antitumor Chinese medicine injections for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It is made from the extraction of , and
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Aidi injection in combination with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (GBC) for advanced NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biological Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Aidi injection plus GBC treatment with GBC alone in NSCLC, from inception up to October 2020. The primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QOL) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. This study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42021221225.
RESULTS
In total, 54 RCTs involving 4318 NSCLC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with GBC alone, Aidi injection plus GBC significantly improve ORR (risk ratios [RR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.48), DCR (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19), QOL (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.54-1.89), and reduced the risk of gastrointestinal toxicity, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, liver injury, renal injury, and anaemia. The evaluation results of the evidence ranged from moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS
Current moderate evidence revealed that Aidi injection as an adjunctive treatment to GBC was associated with superior benefits in patients with advanced NSCLC and alleviate toxicities. High-quality RCTs are needed to further confirm the results.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34541998
DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2021.1973038