中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
CHINA MEDICINE
2011年
6期
721-723
,共3页
张同军%薛栋%成丕光%相亭海%巩本刚
張同軍%薛棟%成丕光%相亭海%鞏本剛
장동군%설동%성비광%상정해%공본강
乳腺肿瘤%肝转移%肝动脉化疗栓塞%化学疗法,辅助%肝切除术
乳腺腫瘤%肝轉移%肝動脈化療栓塞%化學療法,輔助%肝切除術
유선종류%간전이%간동맥화료전새%화학요법,보조%간절제술
Breast cancer%Liver metastases%Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization%Chemotherapy,adjuvant%Hepatectomy
目的 比较手术治疗、全身化疗、全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞对乳腺癌肝转移的疗效.方法 回顾性分析1996年1月至2008年10月52例乳腺癌肝转移临床资料,根据治疗方法分为手术组(12例)和单纯全身化疗组(22例)和全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞组(18例),分析3组的疗效及预后,比较不同治疗方法的疗效.结果 52例乳腺癌术后肝转移患者,全组治疗有效27例(51.9%),手术组有效4例(33.3%),单纯全身化疗组有效11例(50.0%),全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞组有效12例(66.6%).1、2、3年生存率手术治疗组分别为25.0%(3例)、8.3%(11例)、0,单纯全身化疗组分别为31.8%(7例)、13.6%(3例)、9.1%(2例),全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞组分别为44.4%(8例)、33.3%(6例)、11.1%(2例),全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞组生存率明显优于手术治疗组和单纯全身化疗组(P<0.05).结论 采用全身化疗联合肝动脉化疗栓塞治疗乳腺癌术后肝转移疗效较好,值得临床进一步推广.
目的 比較手術治療、全身化療、全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞對乳腺癌肝轉移的療效.方法 迴顧性分析1996年1月至2008年10月52例乳腺癌肝轉移臨床資料,根據治療方法分為手術組(12例)和單純全身化療組(22例)和全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞組(18例),分析3組的療效及預後,比較不同治療方法的療效.結果 52例乳腺癌術後肝轉移患者,全組治療有效27例(51.9%),手術組有效4例(33.3%),單純全身化療組有效11例(50.0%),全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞組有效12例(66.6%).1、2、3年生存率手術治療組分彆為25.0%(3例)、8.3%(11例)、0,單純全身化療組分彆為31.8%(7例)、13.6%(3例)、9.1%(2例),全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞組分彆為44.4%(8例)、33.3%(6例)、11.1%(2例),全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞組生存率明顯優于手術治療組和單純全身化療組(P<0.05).結論 採用全身化療聯閤肝動脈化療栓塞治療乳腺癌術後肝轉移療效較好,值得臨床進一步推廣.
목적 비교수술치료、전신화료、전신화료연합간동맥화료전새대유선암간전이적료효.방법 회고성분석1996년1월지2008년10월52례유선암간전이림상자료,근거치료방법분위수술조(12례)화단순전신화료조(22례)화전신화료연합간동맥화료전새조(18례),분석3조적료효급예후,비교불동치료방법적료효.결과 52례유선암술후간전이환자,전조치료유효27례(51.9%),수술조유효4례(33.3%),단순전신화료조유효11례(50.0%),전신화료연합간동맥화료전새조유효12례(66.6%).1、2、3년생존솔수술치료조분별위25.0%(3례)、8.3%(11례)、0,단순전신화료조분별위31.8%(7례)、13.6%(3례)、9.1%(2례),전신화료연합간동맥화료전새조분별위44.4%(8례)、33.3%(6례)、11.1%(2례),전신화료연합간동맥화료전새조생존솔명현우우수술치료조화단순전신화료조(P<0.05).결론 채용전신화료연합간동맥화료전새치료유선암술후간전이료효교호,치득림상진일보추엄.
Objective To explore the efficacy of hepatectomy and chemotherapy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus chemotherapy on breast cancer complicated with liver metastases. Methods Clinical features of 52 breast cancer patients with liver metastases from 1996 to 2008 were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-two patients were divided into surgery group (group Ⅰ) , systemic chemotherapy group (group Ⅱ) and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus chemotherapy group (group Ⅲ). The efficacies of different treatment approaches were compared. Results The total responsive rate was 51.9% for among all patients. TACE plus chemotherapy produced a significantly higher partial response rate 66. 6% in comparison with 50. 0% (11 cases) of systemic chemotherapy and 33.3% ( 4 cases ) of hepatectomy ( P < 0. 05 ). The median survival time was 16 months ( 2-50 months)and 1-year, 2-year, 3-year survival rate in three groups was 25.0% , 8. 3% , 0( group I ) , 31. 8% , 13.6%, 8.9%(group Ⅱ)and 44.4%, 33.3%, ll.l%(group Ⅲ), respectively. The survival time of group Ⅲ was the longest (P <0.05). Conclusion Chemotherapy plus TACE may be an effective and safe treatment for liver metastases after breast cancer.
