CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)缓释剂对结直肠癌的治疗作用和安全性,为临床用药提供依据.方法计算机检索CBM、中国期刊全文数据库、中国科技期刊全文数据库、万方数字化期刊全文库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、Medline和Embase数据库,检索日期为建库始至2011年3月,筛选5-FU缓释剂与结直肠癌相关文献,只纳入随机对照试验.根据Cochrane评价员手册5.02评价纳入研究的偏倚风险.采用RevMan5.0软件进行统计分析.结果共纳入16篇随机对照试验的1223例研究对象,偏倚风险中等.Meta分析结果显示,5-FU缓释剂组术后2年死亡率(RR=0.33,95％ CI:0.18～0.59)、2年转移率(RR=0.35,95％ CI:0.19～0.66)和2年复发率(RR=0.48,95％ CI:0.36～0.65)均低于对照组;但两组治疗后并发症和不良反应发生率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 5-FU缓释剂可有效改善结直肠癌患者的预后,而不会加重不良反应.但纳入研究的质量有待提高.
목적 평개불뇨밀정(5-FU)완석제대결직장암적치료작용화안전성,위림상용약제공의거.방법 계산궤검색CBM、중국기간전문수거고、중국과기기간전문수거고、만방수자화기간전문고、Cochrane대조시험중심주책고、Medline화Embase수거고,검색일기위건고시지2011년3월,사선5-FU완석제여결직장암상관문헌,지납입수궤대조시험.근거Cochrane평개원수책5.02평개납입연구적편의풍험.채용RevMan5.0연건진행통계분석.결과 공납입16편수궤대조시험적1223례연구대상,편의풍험중등.Meta분석결과현시,5-FU완석제조술후2년사망솔(RR=0.33,95％ CI:0.18～0.59)、2년전이솔(RR=0.35,95％ CI:0.19～0.66)화2년복발솔(RR=0.48,95％ CI:0.36～0.65)균저우대조조;단량조치료후병발증화불량반응발생솔적차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).결론 5-FU완석제가유효개선결직장암환자적예후,이불회가중불량반응.단납입연구적질량유대제고.
Objective To evaluate the benefit and safety of fluorouracil implants on colorectal cancer.Methods Based on the n ethods of Cochrane systematic reviews,databases including CBM (1982 to March 2011),CNKI (1911 to March 2011),EMBASE (1966 to March 2011),and Medline (1950 to March 2011) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the benefit of fluorouracil implants on colorectal cancer.The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing bias.RevMan5.0 was used for meta-analysis.Results Sixteen studies were included (n=1223).The quality of included studies was moderate.Fluorouracil implants could reduce the 2-year mortality(RR=0.33.95％ CI:0.18-0.59),2-year metastasis rate(RR=0.35,95％ CI:0.19-0.66),and 2-year recurrence rate (RR=0.48,95％ CI:0.36-0.65).There were no significant differences in complications and adverse effects between fluorouracil implants and the control group.Conclusions Current evidence demonstrates that fluorouracil implants may modestly improve the outcome of colorectal cancer patients without increasing its adverse events.However,the results should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias of included studies.