肿瘤药学
腫瘤藥學
종류약학
ANTI-TUMOR PHARMACY
2014年
4期
272-276
,共5页
王根和%方平%陈雍%左刚%朱元贞%汪虹
王根和%方平%陳雍%左剛%硃元貞%汪虹
왕근화%방평%진옹%좌강%주원정%왕홍
卵巢癌%复发性%足叶乙甙%腹腔热灌注
卵巢癌%複髮性%足葉乙甙%腹腔熱灌註
란소암%복발성%족협을대%복강열관주
Ovarian cancer%Recurrence%Etoposide%Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy
目的:探讨口服足叶乙甙联合卡铂腹腔热灌注治疗多线化疗后复发性卵巢癌的临床疗效及毒副作用。方法选择2010年1月至2013年8月我科收治的47例多线化疗后复发的卵巢癌患者,随机分为联合组(26例)和对照组(21例)。联合组口服足叶乙甙联合卡铂腹腔热灌注,对照组仅口服足叶乙甙,观察和比较两组的临床疗效和毒副反应。结果联合组的治疗总有效率和总生存时间显著优于对照组(61.5%vs.28.6%;13.0月vs.9.5月);但其白细胞下降和腹痛的发生率均显著高于对照组(65.4%vs.33.3%;34.6%vs.4.8%)。结论口服足叶乙甙联合卡铂腹腔热灌注治疗多线化疗后复发性卵巢癌较单纯口服足叶乙甙更加有效,虽白细胞下降和腹痛的发生率更高但均可控,值得进一步研究和推广。
目的:探討口服足葉乙甙聯閤卡鉑腹腔熱灌註治療多線化療後複髮性卵巢癌的臨床療效及毒副作用。方法選擇2010年1月至2013年8月我科收治的47例多線化療後複髮的卵巢癌患者,隨機分為聯閤組(26例)和對照組(21例)。聯閤組口服足葉乙甙聯閤卡鉑腹腔熱灌註,對照組僅口服足葉乙甙,觀察和比較兩組的臨床療效和毒副反應。結果聯閤組的治療總有效率和總生存時間顯著優于對照組(61.5%vs.28.6%;13.0月vs.9.5月);但其白細胞下降和腹痛的髮生率均顯著高于對照組(65.4%vs.33.3%;34.6%vs.4.8%)。結論口服足葉乙甙聯閤卡鉑腹腔熱灌註治療多線化療後複髮性卵巢癌較單純口服足葉乙甙更加有效,雖白細胞下降和腹痛的髮生率更高但均可控,值得進一步研究和推廣。
목적:탐토구복족협을대연합잡박복강열관주치료다선화료후복발성란소암적림상료효급독부작용。방법선택2010년1월지2013년8월아과수치적47례다선화료후복발적란소암환자,수궤분위연합조(26례)화대조조(21례)。연합조구복족협을대연합잡박복강열관주,대조조부구복족협을대,관찰화비교량조적림상료효화독부반응。결과연합조적치료총유효솔화총생존시간현저우우대조조(61.5%vs.28.6%;13.0월vs.9.5월);단기백세포하강화복통적발생솔균현저고우대조조(65.4%vs.33.3%;34.6%vs.4.8%)。결론구복족협을대연합잡박복강열관주치료다선화료후복발성란소암교단순구복족협을대경가유효,수백세포하강화복통적발생솔경고단균가공,치득진일보연구화추엄。
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of oral Etoposide plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with carboplatin in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer after multiline chemotherapy. Methods From January 2010 to August 2013, twenty six patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after multiline chemotherapy were treated with Oral Etoposide plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with carboplatin, which was named the combined group;while twenty one patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after multiline chemotherapy were only treated with Oral Etoposide, which was named the control group. The clinical efficacy and incidence rates of adverse effects were observed and compared between the two groups. Results The overall response rate and overall survival time of the combined group were significantly higher or longer than those of the control group (61.5%vs. 28.6%;13.0 vs. 9.5month);while the incidence rates of leucopenia and abdominal pain were both markedly higher in the combined group than in the control group(65.4%vs. 33.3%;34.6%vs. 4.8%). Conclusion Oral Etoposide plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with carboplatin was more effective than Oral Etoposide alone in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer after multiline chemotherapy. Although the incidence rates of leucopenia and abdominal pain were higher, both could be controlled, so it was still worth being popularized.