CAJ | 학술논문

目的观察间歇性内分泌治疗与持续性内分泌治疗前列腺癌的疗效，评价比较两组患者的生活质量。方法回顾性分析27例采用间歇内分泌治疗和29例采用持续内分泌治疗前列腺癌患者的临床资料，以发生激素非依赖或疾病进展为观察终点，比较两组患者进展至终点时间，生活质量评价以量表 EORTC QLQC30及子量表 QLQPR25进行横断面调查。结果持续内分泌治疗组平均治疗期20.4个月，最低 PSA 平均值为0.025 ng/ml；间歇内分泌治疗组第一周期，平均治疗9.7个月，间歇8.7个月，最低 PSA 平均值为0.026 ng/ml。间歇内分泌治疗组平均进展时间为26.6个月，持续内分泌治疗组为22.4个月，两组生存曲线率的比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。两组总体生活质量、治疗相关症状等方面评分均无差异。结论间歇性内分泌治疗对比持续治疗在延迟疾病进展至激素非依赖时间上没有益处，但能缓解患者经济压力。在不良反应及患者生活质量改善上两组比较无差异。
목적관찰간헐성내분비치료여지속성내분비치료전렬선암적료효，평개비교량조환자적생활질량。방법회고성분석27례채용간헐내분비치료화29례채용지속내분비치료전렬선암환자적림상자료，이발생격소비의뢰혹질병진전위관찰종점，비교량조환자진전지종점시간，생활질량평개이량표 EORTC QLQC30급자량표 QLQPR25진행횡단면조사。결과지속내분비치료조평균치료기20.4개월，최저 PSA 평균치위0.025 ng/ml；간헐내분비치료조제일주기，평균치료9.7개월，간헐8.7개월，최저 PSA 평균치위0.026 ng/ml。간헐내분비치료조평균진전시간위26.6개월，지속내분비치료조위22.4개월，량조생존곡선솔적비교차이무통계학의의(P >0.05)。량조총체생활질량、치료상관증상등방면평분균무차이。결론간헐성내분비치료대비지속치료재연지질병진전지격소비의뢰시간상몰유익처，단능완해환자경제압력。재불량반응급환자생활질량개선상량조비교무차이。
Objective To observe and compare the effects of hormone therapy for prostate cancer with intermittent or continuous strategies,compare the quality of life (QoL)between the two groups. Methods Retrospectively collected and analysed the clinical data of intermittent (n=27)and continuous (n=29)hormone therapy for prostate cancer patients.The end point of observation was andro-gen independence or progression of disease.The time to end point between two groups were calculated and compared.A cross-sectional investigation of the QoL was taken by EORTC QLQ-C30 and its subscale QLQ-PR25. Results The continuance had a median curative period of 20.4 months,with the mean lowest PSA of 0.025 ng/ml.The intermittence took an average of 9.7 months;8.7 months for suspension in the first cycle,with the mean lowest PSA of 0.026 ng/ml.The average time to end point for intermittence was 26.6 months,compared to the 22.4 months for continuance,but the Ka-plan-Meier curve indicated no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05 ).The general QoL and side effects of treatment were similar between two groups. Conclusions The intermittent hormone therapy did not significantly prolong the time to the progression of disease than the continu-ous therapy.But it could alleviate economic pressures for patients and no significant difference in QoL and adverse reactions was shown between two groups.