CAJ | 학술논문

目的：本研究为比较伊立替康联合顺铂（irinotecanpluscisplatin，IP）方案与紫杉醇联合顺铂(paclitaxelpluscisplatin，TP）方案二线治疗小细胞肺癌（SCLC）的近期疗效、无进展生存期及不良反应。方法分析70例SCLC患者，随机分为两组，分别接受IP和TP方案的主治疗。要研究终点为无进展生存期（progression-freesurvival，PFS），客观反应率（responserate，RR）和不良反应。结果IP组RR68.6%，中位PFS为6.5个月；TP组RR60.0%，中位PFS为4.6个月，两组PFS比较有统计学差异（P＜0.05）。两组主要不良反应均为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应，但骨髓抑制无统计学差异（P＞0.05），IP组腹泻发生率高于TP组，两组比较差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论IP方案二线治疗SCLC客观疗效与TP方案相当，但PFS优于TP组，不良反应可耐受。
목적：본연구위비교이립체강연합순박（irinotecanpluscisplatin，IP）방안여자삼순연합순박(paclitaxelpluscisplatin，TP）방안이선치료소세포폐암（SCLC）적근기료효、무진전생존기급불량반응。방법분석70례SCLC환자，수궤분위량조，분별접수IP화TP방안적주치료。요연구종점위무진전생존기（progression-freesurvival，PFS），객관반응솔（responserate，RR）화불량반응。결과IP조RR68.6%，중위PFS위6.5개월；TP조RR60.0%，중위PFS위4.6개월，량조PFS비교유통계학차이（P＜0.05）。량조주요불량반응균위골수억제화위장도반응，단골수억제무통계학차이（P＞0.05），IP조복사발생솔고우TP조，량조비교차이구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론IP방안이선치료SCLC객관료효여TP방안상당，단PFS우우TP조，불량반응가내수。
Objective?To compare the efifcacy and toxicity of irinotecan plus etoposide (IP) with those of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (TP) as second-line treatments?for?small?cell?lung?cancer?(SCLC).?Methods?A?total?of?70?patients?were?randomly?assigned?into?the?IP?arm?and?the?TP?arm.?The?primary?endpoint?was?progression-free?survival?(PFS),?response?rate,?and?toxicity.?Results?The?median?PFS?was?6.5?months?in?the?IP?arm?and?4.6?months?in?the?TP?arm.?Signiifcant difference was observed (P<0.05). The response rate was 68.6% in the IP arm and 60.0% in the TP arm. No signiifcant difference in response rate was?observed?between?the?two?arms?(P>0.05).?The?main?common?adverse?reactions?were?myelosuppression?and?gastrointestinal?response?in?both?treatment?arms. No signiifcant difference in myelosuppression toxicity was observed between the arms (P>0.05). Diarrhea was signiifcantly more frequent in the IP arm than?in?the?TP?arm?(P<0.05).?Conclusion?The?control?rate?of?IP?and?TP?as?second-line?therapy?for?SCLC?are?equivalent.?Progression?free?survival?was?higher?in?the?IP?arm?than?TP?arm,?and?adverse?reactions?can?be?tolerated.