130
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Efficacy and safety of sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection for the treatment of digestive system neoplasms: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

, &
Pages 183-203 | Published online: 28 Dec 2018

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flow diagram of the selection process.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of the selection process.

Table 1 Clinical information from the eligible trials in the meta-analysis

Table 2 Information of SC/B6 combined with conventional medical treatment

Figure 2 Risk of bias summary: review of authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for included studies.

Note: Each color represents a different level of bias: red for high risk, green for low risk, and yellow for unclear risk of bias.
Figure 2 Risk of bias summary: review of authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for included studies.

Table 3 Comparison of CR, PR, SD, PD, ORR, and DCR between the SC/B6 + CMT and SC/B6 group

Figure 3 Forest plot of the comparison of overall survival between the experimental and control groups.

Notes: Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (inverse variance method) was used.
Abbreviations: CMT, conventional medical treatment; IV, intravenous.
Figure 3 Forest plot of the comparison of overall survival between the experimental and control groups.

Figure 4 Forest plot of the comparison of overall response rate (A) and disease control rate (B) between the experimental and control groups.

Notes: Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (M–H method) was used.
Abbreviations: CMT, conventional medical treatment; M–H, Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 4 Forest plot of the comparison of overall response rate (A) and disease control rate (B) between the experimental and control groups.
Figure 4 Forest plot of the comparison of overall response rate (A) and disease control rate (B) between the experimental and control groups.

Figure 5 Forest plot of the comparison of quality-of-life improved rate between the experimental and control groups.

Notes: Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, SC/B6 + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (M–H method) was used.
Abbreviations: CMT, conventional medical treatment; M–H, Mantel–Haenszel; SC/B6, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection.
Figure 5 Forest plot of the comparison of quality-of-life improved rate between the experimental and control groups.

Table 4 Comparison of adverse events between the SC/B6 + CMT and SC/B6 group

Figure 6 Funnel plot of percentage of overall response rate (A), disease control rate (B), quality-of-life improved rate (C), leukopenia (D), nausea and vomiting (E), gastrointestinal side effects (F), and hepatotoxicity (G).

Note: Parameters discussed in over eight papers were conducted bias analyses.
Figure 6 Funnel plot of percentage of overall response rate (A), disease control rate (B), quality-of-life improved rate (C), leukopenia (D), nausea and vomiting (E), gastrointestinal side effects (F), and hepatotoxicity (G).

Table 5 Publication bias on therapeutic efficacy and adverse events

Table 6 Subgroup analyses of ORR and DCR between the SC/B6 + CMT and SC/B6 groups

Figure S1 Forest plot of the comparison of complete response rates (A), partial response rates (B), stable disease rates (C), and progressive disease rates (D) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (M–H method) was used.

Abbreviations: CMT, conventional medical treatment; M–H, Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure S1 Forest plot of the comparison of complete response rates (A), partial response rates (B), stable disease rates (C), and progressive disease rates (D) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (M–H method) was used.
Figure S1 Forest plot of the comparison of complete response rates (A), partial response rates (B), stable disease rates (C), and progressive disease rates (D) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT. The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (M–H method) was used.

Figure S2 Forest plot of the comparison of adverse effects including leukopenia (A), nausea and vomiting (B), gastrointestinal side effects (C), hepatotoxicity (D), nephrotoxicity (E), diarrhea (F), thrombocytopenia (G), transaminase disorder (H), myelosuppression (I), hand foot syndrome (J), oral mucositis (K), anorexia (L), and anemia (M) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT.

Abbreviation: CMT, conventional medical treatment.
Figure S2 Forest plot of the comparison of adverse effects including leukopenia (A), nausea and vomiting (B), gastrointestinal side effects (C), hepatotoxicity (D), nephrotoxicity (E), diarrhea (F), thrombocytopenia (G), transaminase disorder (H), myelosuppression (I), hand foot syndrome (J), oral mucositis (K), anorexia (L), and anemia (M) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT.
Figure S2 Forest plot of the comparison of adverse effects including leukopenia (A), nausea and vomiting (B), gastrointestinal side effects (C), hepatotoxicity (D), nephrotoxicity (E), diarrhea (F), thrombocytopenia (G), transaminase disorder (H), myelosuppression (I), hand foot syndrome (J), oral mucositis (K), anorexia (L), and anemia (M) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT.
Figure S2 Forest plot of the comparison of adverse effects including leukopenia (A), nausea and vomiting (B), gastrointestinal side effects (C), hepatotoxicity (D), nephrotoxicity (E), diarrhea (F), thrombocytopenia (G), transaminase disorder (H), myelosuppression (I), hand foot syndrome (J), oral mucositis (K), anorexia (L), and anemia (M) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT.
Figure S2 Forest plot of the comparison of adverse effects including leukopenia (A), nausea and vomiting (B), gastrointestinal side effects (C), hepatotoxicity (D), nephrotoxicity (E), diarrhea (F), thrombocytopenia (G), transaminase disorder (H), myelosuppression (I), hand foot syndrome (J), oral mucositis (K), anorexia (L), and anemia (M) between the experimental and control groups. Control group, CMT-alone group; Experimental group, sodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (SC/B6) + CMT.

Figure S3 Funnel plot of percentage of complete response rates (A), partial response rates (B), stable disease rates (C), and progressive disease rates (D).

Figure S3 Funnel plot of percentage of complete response rates (A), partial response rates (B), stable disease rates (C), and progressive disease rates (D).