肿瘤药学
腫瘤藥學
종류약학
ANTI-TUMOR PHARMACY
2013年
5期
365-367,381
,共4页
复发转移性乳腺癌%吉西他滨%奈达铂%顺铂%临床疗效
複髮轉移性乳腺癌%吉西他濱%奈達鉑%順鉑%臨床療效
복발전이성유선암%길서타빈%내체박%순박%림상료효
Recurrent and Metastatic breast cancer%Gemcitabine%Nedaplatin%Cisplatin%Clinical efficacy
目的：探讨吉西他滨联合顺铂（GP方案）和吉西他滨联合奈达铂（GEM+NDP方案）治疗复发转移性乳腺癌的临床疗效及不良反应。方法按照随机原则，将52例复发转移性乳腺癌患者分为GP组（29例）和GEM+NDP组（23例），两种方案均以21天为1个治疗周期，治疗2周期和4周期后比较其临床疗效及不良反应。结果治疗2周期后， GP组和GEM+NDP组的治疗总有效率分别为48.28％和60.87％，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。除PD以外的患者继续化疗，化疗4周期后，GP组及GEM+NDP组的总有效率分别为31.58％和50.00％，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。GP组及GEM+NDP组III级白细胞下降、III级血小板减少、贫血的发生率比较，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；GEM+NDP组胃肠道反应的发生率（13.0％）明显低于GP组（69.0％）（P<0.05）。GP组1例发生I度肾功损害（3.4％），5例发生II度肾功损害（17.2％）；而GEM+NDP组仅1例I度肾功损害（4.3％），差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 GP方案和GEM+NDP方案治疗蒽环类和（或）紫杉类耐药的复发转移性晚期乳腺癌的疗效相当，不良反应可以耐受。
目的：探討吉西他濱聯閤順鉑（GP方案）和吉西他濱聯閤奈達鉑（GEM+NDP方案）治療複髮轉移性乳腺癌的臨床療效及不良反應。方法按照隨機原則，將52例複髮轉移性乳腺癌患者分為GP組（29例）和GEM+NDP組（23例），兩種方案均以21天為1箇治療週期，治療2週期和4週期後比較其臨床療效及不良反應。結果治療2週期後， GP組和GEM+NDP組的治療總有效率分彆為48.28％和60.87％，差異無統計學意義（P>0.05）。除PD以外的患者繼續化療，化療4週期後，GP組及GEM+NDP組的總有效率分彆為31.58％和50.00％，差異無統計學意義（P>0.05）。GP組及GEM+NDP組III級白細胞下降、III級血小闆減少、貧血的髮生率比較，差異均無統計學意義（P>0.05）；GEM+NDP組胃腸道反應的髮生率（13.0％）明顯低于GP組（69.0％）（P<0.05）。GP組1例髮生I度腎功損害（3.4％），5例髮生II度腎功損害（17.2％）；而GEM+NDP組僅1例I度腎功損害（4.3％），差異有統計學意義（P<0.05）。結論 GP方案和GEM+NDP方案治療蒽環類和（或）紫杉類耐藥的複髮轉移性晚期乳腺癌的療效相噹，不良反應可以耐受。
목적：탐토길서타빈연합순박（GP방안）화길서타빈연합내체박（GEM+NDP방안）치료복발전이성유선암적림상료효급불량반응。방법안조수궤원칙，장52례복발전이성유선암환자분위GP조（29례）화GEM+NDP조（23례），량충방안균이21천위1개치료주기，치료2주기화4주기후비교기림상료효급불량반응。결과치료2주기후， GP조화GEM+NDP조적치료총유효솔분별위48.28％화60.87％，차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。제PD이외적환자계속화료，화료4주기후，GP조급GEM+NDP조적총유효솔분별위31.58％화50.00％，차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。GP조급GEM+NDP조III급백세포하강、III급혈소판감소、빈혈적발생솔비교，차이균무통계학의의（P>0.05）；GEM+NDP조위장도반응적발생솔（13.0％）명현저우GP조（69.0％）（P<0.05）。GP조1례발생I도신공손해（3.4％），5례발생II도신공손해（17.2％）；이GEM+NDP조부1례I도신공손해（4.3％），차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）。결론 GP방안화GEM+NDP방안치료은배류화（혹）자삼류내약적복발전이성만기유선암적료효상당，불량반응가이내수。
Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy and toxicities of gemcitabine combined with cisplatin and gemcitabine combined with Nedaplatin (NDP) on recurrent and metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods Fifty-two MBC patients were di-vided into gemcitabline combined with cisplatin (GP) Group (n=29) and gemcitabline combined with nedaplatin (GEM+NDP) Group (n=23) by using the principle of random assigning. The two treatments took 21 days as a cycle. The clinical efficacy and the toxicities were evaluated after two cycles and four cycles. Results After two cycles, the overall response rate (ORR) was 48.28%and 60.87%respectively in GP Group and GEM+NDP Group, and there was no significant difference between them (P>0.05). Except the PD patients, the others continued to get chemotherapy. After four cycles, the ORR was 31.58%and 50.00%respectively in GP Group and GEM+NDP Group, and there was still no significant difference between them (P>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of third degree leucopenia, Third degree throm-bocytopenia and anemia. The incidence of gastrointestinal reaction in GEM+NDP Group (13.0%) was obviously lower than that of GP Group (69.0%), with significant difference (P<0.05). There was one case (3.4%)of First degree impaired renal function and five cases (17.2%) of Second degree impaired renal function in GP Group, while in GEM+NDP Group there was only one case (4.3%) of First degree impaired renal function. There were significant differences between them (P<0.05). Conclusion GP regimen and GEM+NDP regimen had similar efficacy in the treatment of anthracycline or taxane-resistant recurrent and meta-static breast cancer, and the toxicities can be tolerated.
