CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨贝伐珠单抗联合FOLFOX方案治疗晚期结肠癌的临床疗效。方法60例晚期结肠癌患者按随机数表法分为两组，FOLFOX方案组30例，贝伐珠单抗联合FOLFOX方案组（联合组）30例。观察治疗5个周期后两组患者的临床疗效、KPS评分、血清肿瘤标志物的浓度以及不良反应。结果联合组的总有效率为43.33%，明显高于FOLFOX组的16.67%，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；联合组治疗后的KPS评分（91.50±2.63）高于同组治疗前（72.35±1.58）以及FOLFOX组治疗后的KPS评分（76.39±1.82），差异均具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；联合组患者治疗后血清肿瘤标志物CEA和CA242浓度分别为（19.34±7.81）μg/L和（30.11±17.38）U/ml，明显低于FOLFOX组的（32.47±10.81）μg/L和（50.64±10.98）U/ml，两组间差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组患者出现的不良反应情况比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论与FOLFOX方案相比，贝伐珠单抗联合FOLFOX方案治疗晚期结肠癌有较好的疗效。
목적：탐토패벌주단항연합FOLFOX방안치료만기결장암적림상료효。방법60례만기결장암환자안수궤수표법분위량조，FOLFOX방안조30례，패벌주단항연합FOLFOX방안조（연합조）30례。관찰치료5개주기후량조환자적림상료효、KPS평분、혈청종류표지물적농도이급불량반응。결과연합조적총유효솔위43.33%，명현고우FOLFOX조적16.67%，차이구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）；연합조치료후적KPS평분（91.50±2.63）고우동조치료전（72.35±1.58）이급FOLFOX조치료후적KPS평분（76.39±1.82），차이균구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）；연합조환자치료후혈청종류표지물CEA화CA242농도분별위（19.34±7.81）μg/L화（30.11±17.38）U/ml，명현저우FOLFOX조적（32.47±10.81）μg/L화（50.64±10.98）U/ml，량조간차이구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）；량조환자출현적불량반응정황비교，차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05）。결론여FOLFOX방안상비，패벌주단항연합FOLFOX방안치료만기결장암유교호적료효。
Objective To investigate the clinical effects of bevacizumab combined with FOLFOX regimen for patients with advanced colon cancer. Method Sixty patients with advanced colon cancer were randomized into ei-ther FOLFOX group (30 cases) or bevacizumab combined with FOLFOX group (30 cases) according to a random number table method. The clinical effects, KPS scores, serum tumor markers, and toxicities of all patients were ob-served after five cycles of treatment. Result After treatment, the overall response rate in bevacizumab combined with FOLFOX group (combination group) was significantly higher than that of FOLFOX group (43.33% vs 16.67%, P<0.05); the post-treatment KPS scores were higher than the pre-treatment KPS scores in combination group [(91.50± 2.63) vs (72.35 ± 1.58), P<0.05], and it was also higher than the post-treatment KPS scores of FOLFOX group [(91.50±2.63) vs (76.39±1.82), P<0.05], and the differences of which were of statistically significance. The serum tu-mor markers of combination group after treatment were significantly decreased compared with FOLFOX group [CEA (19.34 ± 7.81)μg/L vs (32.47 ± 10.81)μg/L, P<0.05; CA242 (30.11 ± 17.38)U/mL vs (50.64 ± 10.98)U/mL, P<0.05]; and toxicities were similar between both groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with FOLFOX regimen, bevacizumab combined with FOLFOX regimen is superior in respect of clinical outcomes for patients with advanced colon cancer.