中华临床医师杂志（电子版）
中華臨床醫師雜誌（電子版）
중화림상의사잡지（전자판）
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICIANS(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2013年
22期
9920-9923
,共4页
毛丽伟%管静芝%廖国清%李仁德%彭孟岐%韩旭
毛麗偉%管靜芝%廖國清%李仁德%彭孟岐%韓旭
모려위%관정지%료국청%리인덕%팽맹기%한욱
替吉奥%顺铂%恒温循环热灌注%胃肿瘤%腹水
替吉奧%順鉑%恆溫循環熱灌註%胃腫瘤%腹水
체길오%순박%항온순배열관주%위종류%복수
S-1%Cisplatin%Circulatory thermochemotherapy of intraperitoneal perfusion%Stomach neoplasms%Ascites
目的：观察替吉奥（S-1）联合顺铂（DDP）腹腔循环热灌注化疗治疗胃癌合并腹水的临床疗效及不良反应。方法134例患者随机分为试验组（循环热灌注组，n＝67）和对照组（普通热灌注组， n＝67）。S-1均按体表面积给药，服药2周，停药1周，DDP腹腔给药，d190 mg，d860 mg。试验组经恒温循环热灌注仪给药，对照组加入预热的41～43℃0.9%生理盐水100 ml直接腹腔注入。21 d为1周期，2周期后参照 WHO 标准评价客观疗效及不良反应。结果实际可评价134例，试验组腹水有效控制率为67.16%（45/67），对照组为47.76%（32/67），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。临床受益反应率为82.1%（55/67），对照组临床受益率为67.2%（45/67），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组不良反应主要为白细胞减少、贫血、恶心、呕吐等，组间无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。结论与传统治疗方法相比，S-1联合DDP恒温循环热灌注治疗胃癌合并恶性腹水能取的更好的疗效且不增加毒副反应，值得进一步研究应用。
目的：觀察替吉奧（S-1）聯閤順鉑（DDP）腹腔循環熱灌註化療治療胃癌閤併腹水的臨床療效及不良反應。方法134例患者隨機分為試驗組（循環熱灌註組，n＝67）和對照組（普通熱灌註組， n＝67）。S-1均按體錶麵積給藥，服藥2週，停藥1週，DDP腹腔給藥，d190 mg，d860 mg。試驗組經恆溫循環熱灌註儀給藥，對照組加入預熱的41～43℃0.9%生理鹽水100 ml直接腹腔註入。21 d為1週期，2週期後參照 WHO 標準評價客觀療效及不良反應。結果實際可評價134例，試驗組腹水有效控製率為67.16%（45/67），對照組為47.76%（32/67），差異有統計學意義（P＜0.05）。臨床受益反應率為82.1%（55/67），對照組臨床受益率為67.2%（45/67），差異有統計學意義（P＜0.05）。兩組不良反應主要為白細胞減少、貧血、噁心、嘔吐等，組間無統計學差異（P＞0.05）。結論與傳統治療方法相比，S-1聯閤DDP恆溫循環熱灌註治療胃癌閤併噁性腹水能取的更好的療效且不增加毒副反應，值得進一步研究應用。
목적：관찰체길오（S-1）연합순박（DDP）복강순배열관주화료치료위암합병복수적림상료효급불량반응。방법134례환자수궤분위시험조（순배열관주조，n＝67）화대조조（보통열관주조， n＝67）。S-1균안체표면적급약，복약2주，정약1주，DDP복강급약，d190 mg，d860 mg。시험조경항온순배열관주의급약，대조조가입예열적41～43℃0.9%생리염수100 ml직접복강주입。21 d위1주기，2주기후삼조 WHO 표준평개객관료효급불량반응。결과실제가평개134례，시험조복수유효공제솔위67.16%（45/67），대조조위47.76%（32/67），차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。림상수익반응솔위82.1%（55/67），대조조림상수익솔위67.2%（45/67），차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。량조불량반응주요위백세포감소、빈혈、악심、구토등，조간무통계학차이（P＞0.05）。결론여전통치료방법상비，S-1연합DDP항온순배열관주치료위암합병악성복수능취적경호적료효차불증가독부반응，치득진일보연구응용。
Objective To observe therapeutic effects and adverse effects of S-1 combined with DDP by circulatory thermochemotherapy of intraperitoneal perfusion for advanced gastric carcinoma with ascites. Methods 134 patients of advanced gastric carcinoma with malignant ascites were randomly divided into trial group(circulatory thermochemotherapy group, n=67) and control group(common thermochemotherapy group, n=67). All of patients in both groups were given with S-1 orally according to body surface area, twice daily for 2 weeks, drug withdrawl for 1 week. In trial group, 90 mg DDP was given on the first day and 60 mg DDP on the eighth day respectively by circulatory thermochemotherapy instrument. In control group, the same dosage of DDP was dissolved in 100 ml preheated 0.9% physiological saline(41-43℃) and injected into peritoneal cavity directly. Twenty one days makes a cycle, 2 cycles totally in both groups. The efficacy and adverse effects were evaluated according to the common toxicity criteria of WHO. Results 134 cases of patients could be given an objective evaluation of the efficacy and side effects. The response rate was 67.16%(45/67) in trial group and 47.76%(32/67) in control group (P<0.05). The clinical benefit response rate was 82.1%(55/67) in trial group and 67.2%(45/67) in control group(P<0.05). The adverse effects were no statistically significant difference between both groups(P>0.05), mainly as leucopenia, anemia, nausea, and vomiting. Conclusion Comparing with the traditional treatment methods, cycle thermochemotherapy of intraperitoneal perfusion for advanced gastric carcinoma with malignant ascites can take better efficacy without increasing toxicity. It is worthy of studying further in clinic.
