Is continuation passing style any different to pipes?

I've been learning about continuation passing style, particularly the asynchronous version as implemented in javascript, where a function takes another function as a final argument and creates an asychronous call to it, passing the return value to this second function.

However, I can't quite see how continuation-passing does anything more than recreate pipes (as in unix commandline pipes) or streams:

replace('somestring','somepattern', filter(str, console.log));

vs

echo 'somestring' | replace 'somepattern' | filter | console.log

Except that the piping is much, much cleaner. With piping, it seems obvious that the data is passed on, and simultaneously execution is passed to the receiving program. In fact with piping, I expect the stream of data to be able to continue to pass down the pipe, whereas in CPS I expect a serial process.

It is imaginable, perhaps, that CPS could be extended to continuous piping if a comms object and update method was passed along with the data, rather than a complete handover and return.

Am I missing something? Is CPS different (better?) in some important way?

To be clear, I mean continuation-passing, where one function passes execution to another, not just plain callbacks. CPS appears to imply passing the return value of a function to another function, and then quitting.

from Is continuation passing style any different to pipes?