山西医药杂志
山西醫藥雜誌
산서의약잡지
SHANXI MEDICAL JOURNAL
2015年
1期
19-23
,共5页
胃肿瘤%Meta分析%药物疗法,联合%S-1
胃腫瘤%Meta分析%藥物療法,聯閤%S-1
위종류%Meta분석%약물요법,연합%S-1
Stomach neoplasms%Meta-analysis%Drug therapy,combination%S-1
目的：比较S‐1为基础的联合化疗与S‐1单独治疗晚期胃癌患者的疗效与安全性。方法通过检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、MEDLINE和CNKI等数据库，全面收集S‐1为基础的联合化疗与S‐1单独治疗晚期胃癌患者比较的研究，并用Stata12．0软件对其进行Meta分析，以总生存期、无病生存期、客观缓解率和3级以上不良反应为结局指标。结果纳入6项研究包括913例患者，其中接受S‐1为基础的联合化疗患者443例（48.5％），接受S‐1单独疗法的患者470例（51.5％）。与S‐1单独治疗组比较，S‐1为基础的联合化疗组患者的总生存期中位数（ H R＝0.775；95％ C I：0.652，0.899；P＜0.01）和无病生存期中位数（ H R＝0.656；95％CI：0.556，0.756；P＜0.01）显著延长；而且，S‐1为基础的联合化疗组患者的客观缓解率也更优（OR＝1.535；95％ C I：1.189，1.880；P＜0.01）；但是，S‐1为基础的联合化疗组患者的3级以上不良反应发生率更高。结论与S‐1单独治疗比较，S‐1为基础的联合化疗可以显著改善亚洲人群的总生存期、无病生存期和提高客观缓解率；但S‐1为基础的联合化疗可能增加3级以上不良反应发生风险。
目的：比較S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療與S‐1單獨治療晚期胃癌患者的療效與安全性。方法通過檢索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、MEDLINE和CNKI等數據庫，全麵收集S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療與S‐1單獨治療晚期胃癌患者比較的研究，併用Stata12．0軟件對其進行Meta分析，以總生存期、無病生存期、客觀緩解率和3級以上不良反應為結跼指標。結果納入6項研究包括913例患者，其中接受S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療患者443例（48.5％），接受S‐1單獨療法的患者470例（51.5％）。與S‐1單獨治療組比較，S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療組患者的總生存期中位數（ H R＝0.775；95％ C I：0.652，0.899；P＜0.01）和無病生存期中位數（ H R＝0.656；95％CI：0.556，0.756；P＜0.01）顯著延長；而且，S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療組患者的客觀緩解率也更優（OR＝1.535；95％ C I：1.189，1.880；P＜0.01）；但是，S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療組患者的3級以上不良反應髮生率更高。結論與S‐1單獨治療比較，S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療可以顯著改善亞洲人群的總生存期、無病生存期和提高客觀緩解率；但S‐1為基礎的聯閤化療可能增加3級以上不良反應髮生風險。
목적：비교S‐1위기출적연합화료여S‐1단독치료만기위암환자적료효여안전성。방법통과검색PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、MEDLINE화CNKI등수거고，전면수집S‐1위기출적연합화료여S‐1단독치료만기위암환자비교적연구，병용Stata12．0연건대기진행Meta분석，이총생존기、무병생존기、객관완해솔화3급이상불량반응위결국지표。결과납입6항연구포괄913례환자，기중접수S‐1위기출적연합화료환자443례（48.5％），접수S‐1단독요법적환자470례（51.5％）。여S‐1단독치료조비교，S‐1위기출적연합화료조환자적총생존기중위수（ H R＝0.775；95％ C I：0.652，0.899；P＜0.01）화무병생존기중위수（ H R＝0.656；95％CI：0.556，0.756；P＜0.01）현저연장；이차，S‐1위기출적연합화료조환자적객관완해솔야경우（OR＝1.535；95％ C I：1.189，1.880；P＜0.01）；단시，S‐1위기출적연합화료조환자적3급이상불량반응발생솔경고。결론여S‐1단독치료비교，S‐1위기출적연합화료가이현저개선아주인군적총생존기、무병생존기화제고객관완해솔；단S‐1위기출적연합화료가능증가3급이상불량반응발생풍험。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy with S‐1 monotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) .Methods We performed a Meta‐analysis to com‐pare the efficacy and safety of S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy with S‐1 monotherapy in AGC patients .Stud‐ies stratifying overall survival (OS) ,progression‐free survival (PFS) ,objective response rate (ORR) ,and grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) in AGC patients in an S‐1‐based therapy versus an S‐1 monotherapy setting were eligi‐ble for analysis by systematic computerized PubMed ,EMBASE ,Cochrane Library ,MEDLINE and CNKI sear‐ches .Data from these studies were pooled using Stata package version 12 .0 .Results Six studies involved 913 AGC patients were ultimately identified ,of which 443 (48 .5% ) received S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy and 470 (51 .5% ) received S‐1 monotherapy .Median OS and median PFS were significantly prolonged in AGC patients receiving S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy compared with those receiving S‐1 monotherapy (HR=0.775 ;95%CI:0.652 ,0.899 ;P<0.01 ;HR=0.656 ;95% CI:0 .556 ,0 .756 ;P<0.01 ,respectively) .The ORR favored pa‐tients with S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy (OR=1.535 ;95% CI:1.189 ,1.880 ;P< 0.01) .Higher inci‐dence of grade 3/4 AEs was found in patients with S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy (P<0.01) .Conclusion For the Asian population ,S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS and enhanced ORR in comparison to S‐1 monotherapy .The incidence of grade 3/4 AEs was higher in patients with S‐1‐based combination chemotherapy ,compared with S‐1 monotherapy group .
