CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较单纯静脉给药化疗与腹腔灌注化疗2种给药途径治疗晚期上皮性卵巢癌的临床疗效。方法：选取天津市第五中心医院62例晚期上皮性卵巢癌患者，将患者随机分为静脉滴注组和腹腔灌注组。静脉滴注组方案：紫杉醇135 mg/m2静脉滴注，24 h后顺铂75 mg/m2静脉滴注；腹腔灌注组方案：紫杉醇135 mg/m2静脉滴注，24 h后顺铂100 mg/m2腹腔灌注，第8天给予紫杉醇60 mg/m2腹腔灌注。所有患者进行随访，分别对2组患者的近期疗效、远期疗效和不良反应等进行比较。结果：腹腔灌注组肿瘤缓解率较静脉滴注组有增高趋势，但差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；腹腔灌注组的疾病无进展生存期（progression-free survival，PFS）和2年生存率均显著高于静脉滴注组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。腹腔灌注组的不良反应发生率高于静脉滴注组，2组贫血、肝功能损害及神经毒性发生率差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论：腹腔灌注化疗可有效提高晚期上皮性卵巢癌患者的PFS和2年生存率，改善患者预后。
목적：비교단순정맥급약화료여복강관주화료2충급약도경치료만기상피성란소암적림상료효。방법：선취천진시제오중심의원62례만기상피성란소암환자，장환자수궤분위정맥적주조화복강관주조。정맥적주조방안：자삼순135 mg/m2정맥적주，24 h후순박75 mg/m2정맥적주；복강관주조방안：자삼순135 mg/m2정맥적주，24 h후순박100 mg/m2복강관주，제8천급여자삼순60 mg/m2복강관주。소유환자진행수방，분별대2조환자적근기료효、원기료효화불량반응등진행비교。결과：복강관주조종류완해솔교정맥적주조유증고추세，단차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05）；복강관주조적질병무진전생존기（progression-free survival，PFS）화2년생존솔균현저고우정맥적주조，차이유통계학의의（P＜0.01）。복강관주조적불량반응발생솔고우정맥적주조，2조빈혈、간공능손해급신경독성발생솔차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론：복강관주화료가유효제고만기상피성란소암환자적PFS화2년생존솔，개선환자예후。
Objective:Compare with the efficacy of intravenous chemotherapy and intraperitoneal chemotherapy in two different administration methods of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods:Select 62 patients who were diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in the Tianjin NO.5 Central Hospital, the patients were randomly divided into intravenous chemotherapy and intraperitoneal perfusion group. Intravenous drip group scheme:paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 intravenous infusion in the first day,cisplatin after 24 h 75 mg/m2 intravenously. Intraperitoneal perfusion group scheme:paclitaxel intravenous infusion of 135 mg/m2 in the first day,24 h after cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intraperitoneal,and paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 intraperitoneal perfusion in the eighth day. All patients were followed,compared short-term and long-term efficacy and adverse reactions of the two groups patients respectively. Results:The tumor remission rate in intraperitoneal perfusion group was higher than the intravenous drip group, but the difference wasn′t statistically significant (P>0.05);in the compasion of the progression-free survival and 2-year survival rates between the two groups,the intraperitoneal perfusion group was significantly higher than that of intravenous infusion group,difference was statistically significant (P<0.01);the adverse reaction of intraperitoneal perfusion group was higher, but only in anemia, liver function damage and the incidence of neurotoxicity which the difference between the two groups was significant (P<0.05), the other adverse reaction incidence rate between the 2 groups was similar. Conclusions:Intraperitoneal perfusion chemotherapy can effectively improve PFS and 2-year survival rates of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and also improve patient outcomes.