CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较硼替佐米联合地塞米松(VD)与长春新碱、多柔比星联合地塞米松方案(VAD)治疗多发性骨髓瘤的疗效和安全性.方法 42例多发性骨髓瘤患者,18例为VD方案治疗组,24例患者为VAD方案治疗组.采用欧洲血液和骨髓移植工作组(EBMT)标准判定疗效,按照NCICTCAE标准判断不良反应.结果两组方案比较显示:VD方案组完全缓解(CR)为44.4％,部分缓解(PR)为33.3％,轻微缓解(MR)为16.7％,无变化(NC)为11.1％,疾病进展(PD)为0,总有效率为88.9％；VAD方案组CR为8.3％,PR为29.2％,MR为20.8％,NC为29.2％,PD为12.5％,总有效率为58.3％.经x2检验分析,两组方案的总有效率比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).VD方案不良反应较轻,未见明显血液学及心脏毒性.结论 VD方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤是一种有效而安全的方案.
목적 비교붕체좌미연합지새미송(VD)여장춘신감、다유비성연합지새미송방안(VAD)치료다발성골수류적료효화안전성.방법 42례다발성골수류환자,18례위VD방안치료조,24례환자위VAD방안치료조.채용구주혈액화골수이식공작조(EBMT)표준판정료효,안조NCICTCAE표준판단불량반응.결과 량조방안비교현시:VD방안조완전완해(CR)위44.4％,부분완해(PR)위33.3％,경미완해(MR)위16.7％,무변화(NC)위11.1％,질병진전(PD)위0,총유효솔위88.9％；VAD방안조CR위8.3％,PR위29.2％,MR위20.8％,NC위29.2％,PD위12.5％,총유효솔위58.3％.경x2검험분석,량조방안적총유효솔비교차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05).VD방안불량반응교경,미견명현혈액학급심장독성.결론 VD방안치료다발성골수류시일충유효이안전적방안.
Objective To compare the safety and therapeutic effect between velcade + dexamethasone (VD) regimen and vincristin + doxorubicin + dexamethasone (VAD) regimen for multiple myeloma(MM).Methods Forty-two patients were reviewed,18 of whom were treated with VD and others were treated with VAD.National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE) European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant(EBMT) criteria were chosen to analyze the side effects and efficacy.Results In the VD group and the VAD group,the rates of complete response,partial response,minimal response,no change and progress disease were 44.4％ vs.8.3％,33.3％ vs.29.2％,16.7％ vs.20.8％,11.1％ vs.29.2％ and 0 vs.12.5％,respectively.The total response rates were 94.4％ vs.58.3％.The side effects were less serious,and the endurance was better in the VD group than that in the revised VAD group.No serious effect of hematology and cardiology were seen in the VD group.Conclusion Velcade combined with dexamethasone is an effective and safe regimen for multiple myeloma.