Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a nanodrug delivery regimen compared with conventional drug administration for the treatment of lung cancer. Materials and Methods. Studies were retrieved through PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. Primary and secondary outcome measures, including overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events, were extracted from the retrieved literature and systematically evaluated. Results. Six trials, including 4806 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients, were included in this study. Compared with conventional drug administration in the treatment of lung cancer, the nanodrug delivery regimen improved the ORR (risk ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25–1.63, p ≤ 0.001 ), prolonged PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.76–0.92, p ≤ 0.001 ), and obtained superior OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.83–0.99, p ≤ 0.001 ). Regarding safety, the incidence of neutropenia, alopecia, sensory neuropathy, myalgia, and arthralgia was lower in the nanoadministration group, but the risk of thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and nausea was increased. Conclusion. Nanodrug administration is safe and effective in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer to some extent.

Background To explore the effect of intervention programs constructed under the guidance of the comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with ovarian cancer. Method According to the time of admission, 90 ovarian cancer chemotherapy patients in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from June 2019 to September 2020 were divided into an intervention group and a control group with 45 cases each. Both groups of patients received routine intervention, and the intervention group implemented the CUSP program on this basis. The intervention lasted 8 months. Before and after the intervention, the patients in the ward were used the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for the effect evaluation. Results After the intervention, the degree of nausea and vomiting frequency in the intervention group were significantly lower than that in the control group, especially the degree of nausea in the delayed phase (P < 0.05). The score of the functional living index-emesis in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the anxiety and depression in the intervention group were significantly relieved compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion The intervention program guided by the CUSP model can significantly alleviate patients’ nausea and vomiting, improve the quality of life, and relieve anxiety and depression. The CUSP model is suitable for clinical practice and has guiding significance for clinical work.