# Clinical Application of Anlotinib Combined with Docetaxel: Safe and Effective Treatment for Lung Carcinoma

Authors: Xiang Ji; Xin Jing; Yongshi Liu; Jiangbo Huang; Sanhu Yang; Yuhui Yun
Journal: Disease Markers
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To compare the clinical efficacy and long-term survival between anlotinib monotherapy and anlotinib plus docetaxel in patients with lung carcinoma. Methods. Between October 2019 and December 2021, 84 patients with lung cancer diagnosed and treated at our hospital were enrolled and randomly allocated to the control (n=42) and experimental (n=42) groups. Patients in the control group only received anlotinib, whereas those in the experimental group were administered both anlotinib and docetaxel. The clinical effectiveness, long-term survival, and other associated variables of the two groups were compared. Results. There were no CR cases, 7 PR cases, 22 SD cases, and 13 PD cases in the control group. In the experimental group, there were 4 cases of CR, 20 cases of CR, 11 cases of SD, and 7 cases of PD. The overall clinical effectiveness of the experimental group was much higher than that of the control group. There were 3 cases of anemia, 5 cases of pyrexia, 6 cases of proteinuria, 9 cases of nausea and vomiting, and 4 cases of abnormal liver and renal function in the control group. (P<0.05). In the experimental group, there were 2 cases of anemia, 3 cases of pyrexia, 1 case of proteinuria, 5 cases of nausea and vomiting, and 1 case of abnormal liver and kidney function. The incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than in the control group (64.29%) (P<0.05). According to the two-year follow-up results, the survival rate was 19.05% in the control group and 54.76% in the experimental group, and the mortality rate was 80.95% in the control group and 45.24% in the experimental group. The experimental group had a significantly higher survival rate than the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion. Anlotinib combined with docetaxel is a safe and effective treatment for lung carcinoma to reduce the incidence of adverse reactions and improve the long-term survival rate. These benefits make it worthy of a broader clinical application. Although pharmacological treatment was applied in this study based on the mechanism, specific bioeffective markers are yet to be identified, presenting a direction for future research.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Lung carcinoma [1] is a malignant tumor with a high incidence and mortality rate that poses a serious threat to people’s health and lives, with a major pathogenic site in the bronchial mucosa or the glands of the lung. Lung carcinoma is divided into two types based on histopathological characteristics: non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), accounting for approximately 85% of all lung carcinomas, and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), representing approximately 15%-20% [2]. According to epidemiological data, the incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer have remained high worldwide in the last 50 years, with an evident increasing trend. Lung cancer has the highest incidence and fatality rates in males and the second highest in women among all malignant tumors. [3].Although the exact causes of lung carcinoma are not yet identified, long-term heavy smoking, chronic pulmonary disease, and occupational exposure to certain agents may be contributing factors. Lung cancer has a diverse set of clinical manifestations, including local, systemic, extra-pulmonary, infiltrating, and metastatic symptoms. Coughing, typically a paroxysmal annoying dry cough with or without phlegm, is a common early sign. As the tumor grows, an irregular discomfort or dull pain in the chest may occur and aggravate while coughing. [4]. The presence or absence of signs and symptoms and their severity are determined by appearance, tumor site, type of pathology, metastases, and complications as well as differences in patient response and tolerability. Chemotherapy is the main treatment for lung carcinoma, with more than 90% of cases requiring chemotherapy [5, 6].Chemotherapy is effective in both early and late stages of small cell lung carcinoma and can even cure about 1% of early-stage SCLC. Chemotherapy is also the main treatment for NSCLC, with a response rate of 40-50%, but it cannot cure cancer in general and can only prolong the survival of patients and improve their quality of life. Chemotherapy is divided into therapeutic and adjuvant chemotherapy, and different chemotherapeutic drugs and regimens should be selected according to various histological types of lung carcinoma [7]. Chemotherapy can cause bone marrow hematopoietic suppression, leading to a reduction in the amount of white blood cells and platelets. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and platelet-stimulating factor can be used to treat this. Contrarily, chemotherapy is controversial in clinical practice since it kills both tumor cells and healthy cells. Anlotinib [8] is a targeted therapy drug that inhibits tumor angiogenesis. It is a multitargeted small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) [9] developed independently in China that can block the angiogenesis of tumors and inhibit tumor growth. Anlotinib is high selective for angiogenesis-related kinases, ensuring both efficacy and low toxicity [10, 11].Docetaxel [12] has the same effect as paclitaxel (PTX), an M-phase cycle-specific drug that promotes the assembly and stabilization of microtubules, prevents their disaggregation, and significantly reduces the number of microtubules while disrupting the microtubule network’s structure. It is currently one of the most applied chemotherapeutic drugs in clinical practice [13]. Previous studies suggest that anlotinib can assist in controlling a variety of malignancies, such as small cell lung carcinoma and esophageal cancer, but there are limited clinical studies on its combination with docetaxel. Significantly, at the time of diagnosis, more than half of lung carcinoma patients had metastases. Despite this, the absence of precise biomarkers for early tumor identification, as well as restricted preclinical models, has obstructed the growth of lung carcinoma treatment. To avoid the onset and development of lung carcinoma, more molecular identification is essential for fundamental and clinical lung carcinoma research, likewise as the identification of novel and effective LUAD prognostic indicators. Mechanism-based pharmacotherapy remains essential. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and the effect on long-term survival of anlotinib monotherapy versus anlotinib combined with docetaxel for the treatment of lung carcinoma to provide a scientific and effective treatment plan for lung carcinoma patients. The results of the study are presented.


## 2. Data and Methods

### 2.1. Study Subjects

A total of 84 patients with lung carcinoma diagnosed and treated in our hospital between October 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled in this study, including 53 males and 31 females, aged between 40 and 75 years, with a mean age of62.73±5.91 years. All patients were randomly numbered and assigned to the control group (n=42) or experimental group (n=42). Patients in the control group received only anlotinib, while those in the experimental group were treated with both anlotinib and docetaxel.


#### 2.1.1. Random Method

The randomization was carried out using an online web-based randomization tool (freely available athttp://www.randomizer.org/). For concealment of allocation, the randomization procedure and assignment were managed by an independent research assistant who was not involved in screening or evaluating the participants.


#### 2.1.2. Sample Size Estimation

For the calculation of the sample size, the sample size was determined according to the method of the case study of the hospital sampling survey; the estimated prevalence was 5%; the relative error of the sampling survey was 20% and was set at 1.5, with a 95% confidence interval,Za=1.96 and a 10% incompleteness rate of the data, and the final calculated sample size was in the range of 35 to 50.


#### 2.1.3. Ethical Considerations

The trial was carried out in compliance with the standards of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial protocol and all amendments were approved by the appropriate ethics body in each participating institution. All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment. The trial protocol has been published online and is available with the full text of this article. Ethics No.:MI-TY201910102.


### 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they: (i) had met the relevant diagnostic criteria of lung carcinoma as per theGuideline for Diagnosis and Treatment of Tumors and had been confirmed by relevant imaging examinations; (ii) had an expected survival period ≥3 months; (iii) had their families and themselves informed of this study and voluntarily signed the consent form; (iv) had tumor invasion of blood vessels or judged to be at risk of hemoptysis during follow-up treatment; (v) had any signs or symptoms of bleeding; (vi) showed symptoms of brain metastases; (vii) were allergic to the components of the study drug; (viii) had current events that preclude oral administration of the study drug (e.g., dysphagia, chronic diarrhea, intestinal obstruction, etc.).Patients were excluded if they had: (i) combination of other primary malignancies; (ii) allergy to study-related drugs or history of related allergies; (iii) a combination of hepatic and renal insufficiency, heart failure, respiratory failure, etc.; (iv) unconsciousness or combination of psychiatric disorders.


### 2.3. Methods

The patients in the control group received anlotinib alone as follows: 12 mg of anlotinib (Guo Yao Zhun Zi: H20180004, Chia Tai-Tianqing Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd.) [14], per oral, once a day before breakfast; discontinued for one week after two consecutive weeks, which represents a course of treatment, i.e., 3 weeks as a cycle, for a total of 4 treatment courses.Patients in the experimental group were treated with anlotinib combined with docetaxel as follows: anlotinib was administered the same as in the control group, and 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel (Guo Yao Zhun Zi: H20093092, Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.) was administered intravenously once a day for 3 weeks as a treatment course; if the patients did not tolerate it, the dose of anlotinib could be adjusted to 8-10 mg/d for a total of 4 treatment courses.


### 2.4. Evaluation Criteria

(i)
Clinical efficacy: clinical effectiveness was evaluated in four categories based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressing disease (PD). CR: the lack of lesions has lasted more than a month after they disappeared. PR: sum of the maximum diameter of the lesions has been reduced by at least >30% and maintained for more than 1 month; SD: sum of the maximum diameter of the lesions has been reduced by <30% or increased by <20%; PD: the volume of the lesions has been increased by >20% compared with that before treatment or new lesions have appeared. Overalleffectiveness=CR+PR/Totalnumberofcases×100%(ii)
Adverse reactions: all patients’ adverse responses, including anemia, pyrexia, proteinuria, nausea and vomiting, and abnormal liver and kidney functions, were meticulously documented, and the incidence of adverse reactions was estimated and compared across groups(iii)
Long-term survival rate: all patients were followed up by telephone or regular outpatient visits for two years, and their survival and mortality rates were recorded in detail during the two-year follow up and compared between groups


### 2.5. Data Analysis

If the parameter beta is either a difference of means, a log-odds ratio, or a log-hazard ratio, then it is reasonable to assume thatb is unbiased and normally distributed. SPSS22.0 software was used for data analysis, and the measurement data were expressed as (x¯±s) and subjected to independent samples t test; the enumeration data were expressed as number of cases (%) and subjected to x2 test. A statistical significance of the comparison was indicated by P<0.05.


## 2.1. Study Subjects

A total of 84 patients with lung carcinoma diagnosed and treated in our hospital between October 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled in this study, including 53 males and 31 females, aged between 40 and 75 years, with a mean age of62.73±5.91 years. All patients were randomly numbered and assigned to the control group (n=42) or experimental group (n=42). Patients in the control group received only anlotinib, while those in the experimental group were treated with both anlotinib and docetaxel.


### 2.1.1. Random Method

The randomization was carried out using an online web-based randomization tool (freely available athttp://www.randomizer.org/). For concealment of allocation, the randomization procedure and assignment were managed by an independent research assistant who was not involved in screening or evaluating the participants.


### 2.1.2. Sample Size Estimation

For the calculation of the sample size, the sample size was determined according to the method of the case study of the hospital sampling survey; the estimated prevalence was 5%; the relative error of the sampling survey was 20% and was set at 1.5, with a 95% confidence interval,Za=1.96 and a 10% incompleteness rate of the data, and the final calculated sample size was in the range of 35 to 50.


### 2.1.3. Ethical Considerations

The trial was carried out in compliance with the standards of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial protocol and all amendments were approved by the appropriate ethics body in each participating institution. All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment. The trial protocol has been published online and is available with the full text of this article. Ethics No.:MI-TY201910102.


## 2.1.1. Random Method

The randomization was carried out using an online web-based randomization tool (freely available athttp://www.randomizer.org/). For concealment of allocation, the randomization procedure and assignment were managed by an independent research assistant who was not involved in screening or evaluating the participants.


## 2.1.2. Sample Size Estimation

For the calculation of the sample size, the sample size was determined according to the method of the case study of the hospital sampling survey; the estimated prevalence was 5%; the relative error of the sampling survey was 20% and was set at 1.5, with a 95% confidence interval,Za=1.96 and a 10% incompleteness rate of the data, and the final calculated sample size was in the range of 35 to 50.


## 2.1.3. Ethical Considerations

The trial was carried out in compliance with the standards of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial protocol and all amendments were approved by the appropriate ethics body in each participating institution. All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment. The trial protocol has been published online and is available with the full text of this article. Ethics No.:MI-TY201910102.


## 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they: (i) had met the relevant diagnostic criteria of lung carcinoma as per theGuideline for Diagnosis and Treatment of Tumors and had been confirmed by relevant imaging examinations; (ii) had an expected survival period ≥3 months; (iii) had their families and themselves informed of this study and voluntarily signed the consent form; (iv) had tumor invasion of blood vessels or judged to be at risk of hemoptysis during follow-up treatment; (v) had any signs or symptoms of bleeding; (vi) showed symptoms of brain metastases; (vii) were allergic to the components of the study drug; (viii) had current events that preclude oral administration of the study drug (e.g., dysphagia, chronic diarrhea, intestinal obstruction, etc.).Patients were excluded if they had: (i) combination of other primary malignancies; (ii) allergy to study-related drugs or history of related allergies; (iii) a combination of hepatic and renal insufficiency, heart failure, respiratory failure, etc.; (iv) unconsciousness or combination of psychiatric disorders.


## 2.3. Methods

The patients in the control group received anlotinib alone as follows: 12 mg of anlotinib (Guo Yao Zhun Zi: H20180004, Chia Tai-Tianqing Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd.) [14], per oral, once a day before breakfast; discontinued for one week after two consecutive weeks, which represents a course of treatment, i.e., 3 weeks as a cycle, for a total of 4 treatment courses.Patients in the experimental group were treated with anlotinib combined with docetaxel as follows: anlotinib was administered the same as in the control group, and 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel (Guo Yao Zhun Zi: H20093092, Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.) was administered intravenously once a day for 3 weeks as a treatment course; if the patients did not tolerate it, the dose of anlotinib could be adjusted to 8-10 mg/d for a total of 4 treatment courses.


## 2.4. Evaluation Criteria

(i)
Clinical efficacy: clinical effectiveness was evaluated in four categories based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressing disease (PD). CR: the lack of lesions has lasted more than a month after they disappeared. PR: sum of the maximum diameter of the lesions has been reduced by at least >30% and maintained for more than 1 month; SD: sum of the maximum diameter of the lesions has been reduced by <30% or increased by <20%; PD: the volume of the lesions has been increased by >20% compared with that before treatment or new lesions have appeared. Overalleffectiveness=CR+PR/Totalnumberofcases×100%(ii)
Adverse reactions: all patients’ adverse responses, including anemia, pyrexia, proteinuria, nausea and vomiting, and abnormal liver and kidney functions, were meticulously documented, and the incidence of adverse reactions was estimated and compared across groups(iii)
Long-term survival rate: all patients were followed up by telephone or regular outpatient visits for two years, and their survival and mortality rates were recorded in detail during the two-year follow up and compared between groups


## 2.5. Data Analysis

If the parameter beta is either a difference of means, a log-odds ratio, or a log-hazard ratio, then it is reasonable to assume thatb is unbiased and normally distributed. SPSS22.0 software was used for data analysis, and the measurement data were expressed as (x¯±s) and subjected to independent samples t test; the enumeration data were expressed as number of cases (%) and subjected to x2 test. A statistical significance of the comparison was indicated by P<0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Clinical Data

There were 42 patients in the control group, 26 males and 16 females, aged 42-75 years (mean62.23±5.76 years), and the duration of the disease was 2-8 years (mean 5.17±2.11 years). Based on TNM staging system, 20 patients were in stage II, 16 in stage III, and 6 in stage IV. Among the 42 patients in the experimental group, 27 were males and 15 were females. Patients in the experimental group were aged 40-74 years (mean 63.07±6.21 years), and the duration of disease was 2-8 years (mean 5.23±1.98 years). Based on TNM staging system, 19 patients were in stage II, 15 in stage III, and 8 in stage IV. No statistically significant (P>0.05) differences in clinical data were found between the two groups. Details are shown in Table 1:Table 1
Comparison of clinical data between the two groups (x¯±s).
GroupNumber of patientsSexAge (years)Duration of disease (years)TNM stagingMaleFemaleRangeMeanRangeMeanStage IIStage IIIStage IVControl group42261642-7562.23±5.762-85.17±2.1120166Experimental group42271540-7463.07±6.212-85.23±1.9819158t————0.643—0.134———P————0.522—0.894———


### 3.2. Clinical Efficacy

After treatment, the results showed that 0 (0.00%) patients achieved CR, 7 (16.67%) achieved PR, 22 (52.38%) achieved SD, and 13 (30.95%) achieved PD in the control group, while 4 (9.52%) achieved CR, 20 (47.62%) achieved PR, 11 (26.19%) achieved SD, and 7 (16.67%) achieved PD in the experimental group. Patients in the experimental group had considerably greater overall clinical efficacy than those in the control group (P<0.05). Details are shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsCRPRSDPDOverall effectivenessControl group420 (0.00)7 (16.67)22 (52.38)13 (30.95)7 (16.67)Experimental group424 (9.52)20 (47.62)11 (26.19)7 (16.67)24 (57.18)x2—14.775P—<0.001


### 3.3. Adverse Reactions

In the control group, there were 3 (7.14%) cases of anemia, 5 (11.90%) cases of pyrexia, 6 (9.52%) cases of proteinuria, 9 (21.43%) cases of nausea and vomiting, and 4 (9.52%) cases of abnormal liver and kidney function. The experimental group had 2 (4.76%) cases of anemia, 3 (7.14%) cases of pyrexia, 1 (2.38%) case of proteinuria, 5 (11.90%) cases of nausea and vomiting, and 1 (2.38%) case of abnormal liver and kidney function. The incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group (28.57%) was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that in the control group (64.29%). Details are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsAnemiaPyrexiaProteinuriaNausea and vomitingAbnormal liver and kidney functionOverall incidenceControl group423 (7.14)5 (11.90)6 (9.52)9 (21.43)4 (9.52)27 (64.29)Experimental group422 (4.76)3 (7.14)1 (2.38)5 (11.90)1 (2.38)12 (28.57)x2—10769P—0.001


### 3.4. Long-Term Survival

After a 2-year follow-up, the survival rate was 19.05% (8 cases) in the control group and 54.76% (23 cases) in the experimental group; the mortality rate was 80.95% (34 cases) in the control group and 45.24% (19 cases) in the experimental group. The survival rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group’s (P<0.05). Details are shown in Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of clinical data between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsSurvival rateMortality rateControl group428 (19.05)34 (80.95)Experimental group4223 (54.76)19 (45.24)x2—11.503P—0.001


## 3.1. Clinical Data

There were 42 patients in the control group, 26 males and 16 females, aged 42-75 years (mean62.23±5.76 years), and the duration of the disease was 2-8 years (mean 5.17±2.11 years). Based on TNM staging system, 20 patients were in stage II, 16 in stage III, and 6 in stage IV. Among the 42 patients in the experimental group, 27 were males and 15 were females. Patients in the experimental group were aged 40-74 years (mean 63.07±6.21 years), and the duration of disease was 2-8 years (mean 5.23±1.98 years). Based on TNM staging system, 19 patients were in stage II, 15 in stage III, and 8 in stage IV. No statistically significant (P>0.05) differences in clinical data were found between the two groups. Details are shown in Table 1:Table 1
Comparison of clinical data between the two groups (x¯±s).
GroupNumber of patientsSexAge (years)Duration of disease (years)TNM stagingMaleFemaleRangeMeanRangeMeanStage IIStage IIIStage IVControl group42261642-7562.23±5.762-85.17±2.1120166Experimental group42271540-7463.07±6.212-85.23±1.9819158t————0.643—0.134———P————0.522—0.894———


## 3.2. Clinical Efficacy

After treatment, the results showed that 0 (0.00%) patients achieved CR, 7 (16.67%) achieved PR, 22 (52.38%) achieved SD, and 13 (30.95%) achieved PD in the control group, while 4 (9.52%) achieved CR, 20 (47.62%) achieved PR, 11 (26.19%) achieved SD, and 7 (16.67%) achieved PD in the experimental group. Patients in the experimental group had considerably greater overall clinical efficacy than those in the control group (P<0.05). Details are shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsCRPRSDPDOverall effectivenessControl group420 (0.00)7 (16.67)22 (52.38)13 (30.95)7 (16.67)Experimental group424 (9.52)20 (47.62)11 (26.19)7 (16.67)24 (57.18)x2—14.775P—<0.001


## 3.3. Adverse Reactions

In the control group, there were 3 (7.14%) cases of anemia, 5 (11.90%) cases of pyrexia, 6 (9.52%) cases of proteinuria, 9 (21.43%) cases of nausea and vomiting, and 4 (9.52%) cases of abnormal liver and kidney function. The experimental group had 2 (4.76%) cases of anemia, 3 (7.14%) cases of pyrexia, 1 (2.38%) case of proteinuria, 5 (11.90%) cases of nausea and vomiting, and 1 (2.38%) case of abnormal liver and kidney function. The incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group (28.57%) was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that in the control group (64.29%). Details are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsAnemiaPyrexiaProteinuriaNausea and vomitingAbnormal liver and kidney functionOverall incidenceControl group423 (7.14)5 (11.90)6 (9.52)9 (21.43)4 (9.52)27 (64.29)Experimental group422 (4.76)3 (7.14)1 (2.38)5 (11.90)1 (2.38)12 (28.57)x2—10769P—0.001


## 3.4. Long-Term Survival

After a 2-year follow-up, the survival rate was 19.05% (8 cases) in the control group and 54.76% (23 cases) in the experimental group; the mortality rate was 80.95% (34 cases) in the control group and 45.24% (19 cases) in the experimental group. The survival rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group’s (P<0.05). Details are shown in Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of clinical data between the two groups (%).
GroupNumber of patientsSurvival rateMortality rateControl group428 (19.05)34 (80.95)Experimental group4223 (54.76)19 (45.24)x2—11.503P—0.001


## 4. Discussion

Nearly 25% of all cancer fatalities are caused by lung carcinoma, which is by far the most common type of cancer. Additionally, the majority of lung carcinoma cases are discovered at an advanced stage, and patients with advanced lung carcinoma have a 5-year survival rate of fewer than 5%. Lung carcinoma therapy may be a significant therapeutic downside due to its severe condition and poor prognosis. Molecular identification of diagnostic biomarkers and treatment targets for lung carcinoma should be promoted at all times. Based on these mechanisms of lung cancer, effective markers were investigated to facilitate future drug design and treatment.Tyrosine kinase signaling has been linked to the differentiation and proliferation of tumor cells, according to earlier research. It makes sense to assume that disrupting and inhibiting the tumor tyrosine kinase signaling pathway may have antitumor effects. Recently, lung cancer treatment using molecularly targeted medicines has showed encouraging outcomes. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), such as gefitinib, erlotinib, erlotinib, icotinib and osimertinib, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-KIs), such as crizotinib, can target driver mutations and have been used in the treatment of lung carcinoma. Although they have significantly increased patient survival, it is still crucial to develop novel therapy methods for lung cancer that are highly effective and minimally toxic. Current clinical studies on targeted cancer medications are primarily concentrating on small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors.Anlotinib (AL3818) [15], a novel multitargeted small-molecule TKI developed independently in China, is effective in both PFS and OS for patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma in third-line or further treatment [16]. Although several studies have demonstrated that antiangiogenic medications combined with docetaxel are effective in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, they are not yet available in China [17, 18].The experimental group has considerably greater overall clinical effectiveness, and a lower incidence of adverse reactions, suggesting that the combination treatment with docetaxel is more successful than anlotinib alone due to the lack of an increase in the frequency of adverse responses. The combination therapy offers a low risk of side effects. One reason for this is that anlotinib is a novel TKI with substantial inhibitory effects on kinases connected to tumor progression, including VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR-2, and c-Kit. Anlotinib inhibits tumor growth by inhibiting angiogenesis. It also exerts an antitumor effect on gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, among others. Combination therapy with docetaxel, on the other hand, is more efficient and successful in reducing tumor cell development, delivering positive therapeutic results, and slowing the course of the disease. Furthermore, the dosage intervals and simple oral administration technique have improved patient tolerance and quality of life. The lack of major toxicity and low prevalence of adverse responses in the combined therapy are consistent with prior research findings [19].The experimental group’s much improved survival rate raises the possibility that anlotinib plus docetaxel is an important factor in extending life and enhancing lung cancer prognosis. Docetaxel can bind microtubules in a targeted manner and stabilize tubulin dimers, disrupt microtubule network rearrangement, and inhibit tumor cell division [20]. The combination of docetaxel with anlotinib helps control lesion development, improve the prognosis of patients, enhance their quality of life, and prolong survival. Docetaxel is a novel antimicrotubule drug; a semisynthetic derivative that can control tumor DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis. It acts on the basis of microtubules to promote the assembly of microtubule dimers into microtubules, interfere with the depolymerization process, and maintain stability [21]. Anlotinib is an antiangiogenic targeted drug, which can intensively inhibit tumor cell proliferation-related enzymes, thereby blocking downstream signaling and inhibiting tumor growth. The drug is better absorbed orally, which can improve the overall therapeutic effect. It is commonly used in the treatment of NSCLC, gastric cancer, and other tumor diseases [22, 23]. Anlotinib combined with docetaxel is a synergistic and complementary drug treatment, which can effectively prolong the survival time and improve the quality of life of patients [24, 25].This study offers some ideas for future nontargeted therapies, and presents a direction for research in bioinformatics and other areas to find effective biomarkers, but this study also has some limitations, including (i) the number of cases was small. Due to the recommendation of anlotinib for patients with advanced NSCLC in the third line and above according to current guidelines of the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), the study was used for second line use in patients who could not tolerate chemotherapy after ethical approval, resulting in a limited sample size; (ii) Among lung cancer patients with adenocarcinoma as pathological type, EGFR-TKI-targeted drug therapy was taken if there was a genetic mutation after routine genetic test of adenocarcinoma, and these patients could choose pemetrexed combined with platinum drugs after the emergence of drug resistance, so the number of patients receiving combined anlotinib in the second line in patients with advanced NSCLC was low; (iii) the source of cases in this study was mainly local patients with lung cancer, demonstrating certain regional limitation. Therefore, the findings of this study are for reference only. Further studies are needed to determine the impact on patients’ prognosis, as well as more research into its impact on tumor marker levels to provide theoretical support for our findings.In conclusion, anlotinib, an oral small molecule targeted drug independently developed in China, is convenient for oral administration, does not require lengthy or frequent hospital admissions, and has mild adverse effects, which can improve patients’ quality of life and compliance. It is an optional drug for the backline treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, and an effective treatment option for patients who are averse to receiving chemotherapy. The PFS of patients can be improved by combining antiangiogenic drugs with chemotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and as additional clinical trials are conducted, anlotinib combined with chemotherapy or anlotinib combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors will emerge as a novel treatment option. This combination therapy is safe and suggested to be applied frequently in clinical settings.



---

*Source: 2483816-2022-10-14.xml*