切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华卫生应急电子杂志 ›› 2017, Vol. 03 ›› Issue (06) : 343 -347. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2017.06.006

所属专题: 专题评论 文献

论著

伊立替康联合顺铂化疗对进展期胃癌复治患者的疗效评价
李莹1,(), 刘芬2   
  1. 1. 266300 山东胶州,胶州市人民医院药剂科
    2. 266300 山东胶州,胶州市人民医院信息科
  • 收稿日期:2017-11-19 出版日期:2017-12-18
  • 通信作者: 李莹

Clinical effect of Irinotecan plus ciplatin on treatment of retreated patients with advanced gastric cancer

Ying Li1,(), Fen Liu2   

  1. 1. Department of pharmacy, Jiaozhou Municipal People’s Hospital, Jiaozhou 266300, China
    2. Information Department, Jiaozhou Municipal People’s Hospital, Jiaozhou 266300, China
  • Received:2017-11-19 Published:2017-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Ying Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Li Ying, Email:
引用本文:

李莹, 刘芬. 伊立替康联合顺铂化疗对进展期胃癌复治患者的疗效评价[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2017, 03(06): 343-347.

Ying Li, Fen Liu. Clinical effect of Irinotecan plus ciplatin on treatment of retreated patients with advanced gastric cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2017, 03(06): 343-347.

目的

评价伊立替康(CPT-11)联合顺铂(DDP)对一线化疗不成功的胃癌进展期复治患者的疗效及安全性。

方法

对本院2012年6月至2014年6月收治的60例进展期胃癌复治患者进行前瞻性随机对照研究,其中男性41例,女性19例;年龄18~65岁[(48.91±5.77)岁]。将60例患者按完全随机分组方法分为两组,每组30例,分别行CPT-11(180 mg/m2)组和CPT-11(180 mg/m2)+DDP(25 mg/m2)组。两种化疗方案均以3周为1个治疗周期,对至少连续用药2个及2个以上治疗周期的患者进行疗效与安全性评估。对比观察两组患者治疗前后血清肿瘤标志物(CA199、CEA及CA242)水平、近期疗效[短期有效率(RR)、疾病控制率(DCR)]和远期疗效[无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存时间(OS)],评价CPT-11单药和CPT-11+DDP联合化疗的疗效差异。分别记录并分析两组患者化疗后的不良反应情况,依据美国NCI-NTC3.0评价标准对发生的不良反应进行分级判定,对比评价两种化疗方案的用药安全性。

结果

与CPT-11组相比,通过CPT-11+DDP组患者有较长PFS[(8.49±2.43)个月vs (6.21±1.96)个月,P<0.05],且血清肿瘤标志物CA199[(220.18±59.93) mg/L vs (154.12±23.77) mg/L]、CEA[(31.24±6.15) mg/L vs (15.29±3.84) mg/L]及CA242[(50.17±5.86) mg/L vs (36.46±6.44) mg/L]的表达水平均降低(P均<0.05)。但两组患者RR、DCR及OS差异无统计学意义。CPT-11所涉及化疗方案发生的3~4级不良反应主要为白细胞减少[18.33%(11/60)]、贫血[8.33%(5/60)]和恶心[5%(3/60)];与CPT-11组相比,CPT-11+DDP组腹泻[46.67%(14/30) vs 16.67%(5/30),P<0.05]发生率下降,但恶心[76.67%(29/30) vs 70.00%(21/30),P<0.05]和乏力[70.00%(21/30)vs 26.67%(8/30),P<0.05]发生率增加。

结论

在胃癌进展期二线化疗方案中,CPT-11+DDP联合用药可明显提高患者PFS,降低肿瘤标志物CA199、CEA和CA242的水平,减少腹泻的发生,但将增加恶心和乏力的发生。

Objective

To evaluate safety and clinical effects of Irinotecan (CPT-11) plus ciplatin (DPP) on treatments of advanced gastric cancer patients for whom first-line treatment failed.

Methods

A total of 60 patients with advanced gastric cancer were enrolled from June 2012 to June 2014 based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 41 males and 19 females, aged from 18 to 65 years with an average age of (48.91±5.77) years. The patients were randomly divided into two groups including CPT-11(180 mg/m2)treatment group and CPT-11(180 mg/m2)+ DDP(25 mg/m2) group. After CPT-11 and CPT-11+ DPP treatments, clinical evaluation was performed by the detection of tumor markers, recent efficacy and long-term efficacy. Adverse events were also analyzed in this study.

Results

Compared with CPT-11 regimen, CPT-11+ DDP regimen had more effective in progression-free-sur (PFS) and the level of CA199 [(220.18±59.93) mg/L vs (154.12±23.77) mg/L], CEA [(31.24±6.15) mg/L vs (15.29±3.84) mg/L] and CA242 [(50.17±5.86) mg/L vs (36.46±6.44) mg/L] were significantly lower (P<0.05). Butthere were no significantly differences in response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and overall survival (OS). The occurrence rates of the adverse effects grade 3-4 events were leukopenia [18.33%(11/60)], anemia [8.33%(5/60)] and vomiting [5%(3/60)] in all regimens. The incidence rate of diarrhea of CPT-11+ DDP regimen was less than that of CPT-11 [46.67%(14/30) vs 16.67%(5/30), P<0.05]. And, CPT-11+ DPP regimen had more fatigue [76.67%(29/30) vs 70.00%(21/30), P<0.05] and vomiting [70.00%(21/30) vs 26.67%(8/30), P<0.05].

Conclusion

CPT-11+ DPP treatments significantly improve the patient’s PFS and reduce the expression of tumor markers and the incidence of diarrhea, but increase the incidence of vomiting and fatigue.

表1 两组进展期胃癌复治患者化疗前的基本情况比较
表2 两组进展期胃癌复治患者化疗后的近期疗效评价[例(%)]
图1 两组进展期胃癌复治患者治疗前后血清肿瘤标准物水平的比较
表3 60例进展期胃癌复治患者化疗后的不良反应发生状况[例(%)]
1
Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al.Cancer statistics in China,2015[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2016,66(2):115-132.
2
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al.Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012[J]. Int J Cancer,2015,136(5):E359-386.
3
谭美英,甘润良.EBV相关胃癌临床及病理机制的研究进展[J]. 中南医学科学杂志,2013,41(2):191-195.
4
屠江锋,潘文胜,陈小君,等.胃癌早期筛查的研究进展[J]. 实用肿瘤杂志,2016,31(6):560-564.
5
廖专,孙涛,吴浩,等.中国早期胃癌筛查及内镜诊治共识意见(2014年4月,长沙)[J].中华消化杂志,2014,34(7):408-427.
6
罗琼,许洪伟,郝菁华,等.shRNA-FHIT对胃癌细胞株BGC-823增值和凋亡的影响[J].山东大学学报医学版,2010,48(5):44-48.
7
Feng ZL, Chen LB, Liu ZY, et al.DCF intraperitoneal and intravenous dual chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer: A feasibility study[J].Oncol Lett,2015, 9(1): 491-497.
8
Van Cutsem E, Boni C, Tabernero J, et al.Docetaxel plus oxaliplation with or without fluorouracil or capecitabine in metastatic or locally recurrent gastric cancer: a randomized phase II study[J].Ann Oncol,2015,26(1):149-156.
9
刘云军,何志江,黄毅超,等.多西他赛联合希罗达在晚期胃癌的疗效分析[J].中南医学科学杂志,2012,40(6):585-587.
10
陈一兴,曾昭冲,孙菁,等.基于螺旋断层放疗技术的立体定向放疗治疗肝细胞肝癌的疗效及安全性评价[J].肿瘤,2017,37(4):365-371.
11
陈欣,顾康生,李敏.替吉奥联合伊立替康治疗晚期胃癌的临床观察[J].中华全科医学,2017,15 (9):1496-1498.
12
李建旺,黄春珍,元建华,等.伊立替康联合顺铂对比伊立替康单药二线治疗晚期胃癌的临床研究[J].临床肿瘤学杂志,2016,21(6):540-544.
13
Kanagavel D, Fedyanin M, Tryakin A, et al.Second-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer: Current options and future directions[J].World J Gastroenterol,2015, 21(41):11621-11635.
14
Hultman B, Mahteme H, Sundbom M, et al. Benchmarking of gastric cancer sensitivity to anti-cancer drugs ex vivo as a basis for drug selection in systemic and intraperitoneal therapy[J].J Exp Clin Cancer Res,2014,33(1):110.
15
Kim HS, Kim HJ, Kim SY, et al.Second-line chemotherapy versus supportive cancer treatment in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis[J].Ann Oncol,2013, 24(11):2850-2854.
[1] 安杰, 牛云峰, 刘伟. LINC00520 通过miR-519b-3p/HIF1A 轴促进胃癌的侵袭转移[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 430-436.
[2] 许革新, 何琦, 毛智军, 普彦淞, 杨淦傑, 王建华. 我国胃肿瘤外科治疗现状及发展趋势—基于CiteSpace的可视化分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 350-356.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[8] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[9] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[10] 陈浩, 王萌. 胃印戒细胞癌的临床病理特征及治疗选择的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 108-111.
[11] 贺斌, 马晋峰. 胃癌脾门淋巴结转移危险因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[12] 梁孟杰, 朱欢欢, 王行舟, 江航, 艾世超, 孙锋, 宋鹏, 王萌, 刘颂, 夏雪峰, 杜峻峰, 傅双, 陆晓峰, 沈晓菲, 管文贤. 联合免疫治疗的胃癌转化治疗患者预后及术后并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 619-623.
[13] 刘海旺, 施海, 尚利峰. 不同吻合器在腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术Roux-en-Y式吻合中的应用对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 643-646.
[14] 许杰, 李亚俊, 冯义文. SOX新辅助化疗后腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术与常规根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 647-650.
[15] 张立俊, 孙存杰, 胡春峰, 孟冲, 张辉. MSCT、DCE-MRI 评估术前胃癌TNM 分期的准确性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 519-523.
阅读次数
全文


摘要