摘要
目的:比较伊立替康加顺铂(CPT-11+DDP)及依托泊苷加顺铂(VP-16+DDP)两种方案一线治疗广泛期小细胞肺癌(ED-SCLC)的临床疗效及毒副反应。方法:初治ED-SCLC患者60例,IP组31例患者,应用DDP 30mg/m2静脉滴注,d1-d3,CPT-11 200mg/m2静脉滴注,d1;EP组29例患者,应用方案DDP30mg/m2静脉滴注,VP-16 80mg/m2静脉滴注,均为d1-d3,两种方案均21d为一个周期,连用4个周期。每两个周期评价疗效及毒副反应。结果:IP组有效率为61.3%,EP组有效率为58.6%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);IP组无进展生存期6.9个月,EP组无进展生存期4.8个月,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组毒副反应发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:依托泊泔联合顺铂方案比较伊立替康联合顺铂方案疗效相似,但二者的毒性谱不同(IP组的腹泻发生率明显高于EP组,EP方案血液学毒性大),且IP组生存期较长,是ED-SCLC一线治疗的安全有效方案。
Objective： To evaluate the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of irinotecan plus cisplatin（ IP） and etoposide plus cisplatin（ EP） as the first- line therapy for extensive- disease small cell lung cancer（ ED- SCLC）.Methods： A total of 60 ED- SCLC patients were randomly assigned to IP（ n = 31）（ irinotecan 200 mg / m^2 on days 1and cisplatin 30 mg / m^2 on days 1- 3） or EP（ n = 29）（ etoposide 80 mg / m^2 on days 1- 3 and cisplatin 30 mg / m^2 on days 1- 3）. Treatment were repeated every 3 weeks with 4 cycles. The clinical efficacy and adverse effects of two therapies were compared. Results： The objective response rates（ 0RR） with IP and EP were 61. 3% and 58. 6%,respectively（ P 0. 05）. Median progression- free survival（ PFS） for IP and EP was 6. 9 and 4. 8 months,respectively（ P 0. 05）. The rate of adverse effects in two groups were no significant differences（ P 0. 05）. Conclusion： There is no significant difference of the clinical efficacy of IP and EP as the first- line therapy for ED- SCLC and the adverse effects are tolerant.
出处
《现代肿瘤医学》
CAS
2014年第12期2889-2891,共3页
Journal of Modern Oncology
