中华神经医学杂志
中華神經醫學雜誌
중화신경의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF NEUROMEDICINE
2009年
7期
700-703
,共4页
付延刚%王艳芝%相寿长%宋杰%许鹏
付延剛%王豔芝%相壽長%宋傑%許鵬
부연강%왕염지%상수장%송걸%허붕
球囊法%内放疗%内化疗%神经胶质瘤
毬囊法%內放療%內化療%神經膠質瘤
구낭법%내방료%내화료%신경효질류
Balloon method%Internal radiotherapy%Internal chemotherapy%Glioma
目的 比较研究单纯球囊法32P内放疗和球囊法32P内放化疗对脑胶质瘤患者的临床疗效. 方法 将山东省临沂市沂水中心医院收治的脑胶质瘤患者228例分为3组,A组64例为普通放疗组,B组93例为单纯球囊法32P内放疗组,C组71例为球囊法32P内放化疗组,比较3组患者治疗有效率,平均生存期及1、3、5年生存率,分析其疗效;比较3组患者治疗后的KPS评分,分析治疗副作用. 结果 C组患者治疗后疗效,平均生存期及1、3、5年生存率高于A组、B组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组与A组、C组与A组治疗后KPS评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而B组与C组差异无统计学意义(P0.05). 结论 球囊法32P内放疗治疗胶质瘤患者疗效明显优于普通放疗,球囊法32P内放化疗疗效优于单纯球囊法32P内放疗.普通放疗副作用明显大于单纯球囊法32P内放疗和球囊法32P内放化疗.而单纯球囊法32P内放疗和球囊法32P内放化疗副作用差异不大.
目的 比較研究單純毬囊法32P內放療和毬囊法32P內放化療對腦膠質瘤患者的臨床療效. 方法 將山東省臨沂市沂水中心醫院收治的腦膠質瘤患者228例分為3組,A組64例為普通放療組,B組93例為單純毬囊法32P內放療組,C組71例為毬囊法32P內放化療組,比較3組患者治療有效率,平均生存期及1、3、5年生存率,分析其療效;比較3組患者治療後的KPS評分,分析治療副作用. 結果 C組患者治療後療效,平均生存期及1、3、5年生存率高于A組、B組,差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05);B組與A組、C組與A組治療後KPS評分比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05),而B組與C組差異無統計學意義(P0.05). 結論 毬囊法32P內放療治療膠質瘤患者療效明顯優于普通放療,毬囊法32P內放化療療效優于單純毬囊法32P內放療.普通放療副作用明顯大于單純毬囊法32P內放療和毬囊法32P內放化療.而單純毬囊法32P內放療和毬囊法32P內放化療副作用差異不大.
목적 비교연구단순구낭법32P내방료화구낭법32P내방화료대뇌효질류환자적림상료효. 방법 장산동성림기시기수중심의원수치적뇌효질류환자228례분위3조,A조64례위보통방료조,B조93례위단순구낭법32P내방료조,C조71례위구낭법32P내방화료조,비교3조환자치료유효솔,평균생존기급1、3、5년생존솔,분석기료효;비교3조환자치료후적KPS평분,분석치료부작용. 결과 C조환자치료후료효,평균생존기급1、3、5년생존솔고우A조、B조,차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05);B조여A조、C조여A조치료후KPS평분비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05),이B조여C조차이무통계학의의(P0.05). 결론 구낭법32P내방료치료효질류환자료효명현우우보통방료,구낭법32P내방화료료효우우단순구낭법32P내방료.보통방료부작용명현대우단순구낭법32P내방료화구낭법32P내방화료.이단순구낭법32P내방료화구낭법32P내방화료부작용차이불대.
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of balloon 32P internal radiotherapy with concurrent local chemotherapy in the treatment of brain glioma. Methods A total of 228 patients with brain gliomas were enrolled in this study. Of these patients, 64 received conventional radiotherapy (group A), 93 received balloon 32P internal radiotherapy (group B), and 71 had internal radiotherapy with concurrent local chemotherapy (group C). The response rates, average survival period, and the 1, 3, and 5-year survival rates were compared between the 3 groups to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the treatments. The Kamofsky's Performance Scores (KPS) after the treatments were also compared to assess the adverse effects associated with the treatments Results Significant differences were found in the response rates, average survival period and 1, 3, and 5-year survival rates between the 3 groups. The KPS scores after the treatment differed significantly between groups B and A and between C and A, but not between B and C. Conclusion Balloon 32P internal radiotherapy produces significantly better effect than conventional radiotherapy, and concurrent local chemotherapy even further enhances the effect of balloon 32P internal radiotherapy. Conventional radiotherapy results in greater adverse effects than the other two procedures, which produce comparable adverse effects.