论文部分内容阅读
目的比较GP方案与NP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒性反应。方法56例晚期非小细胞肺癌随机分为两组,GP组29例,吉西他滨1.0～1.2g/m2,第1、第8天,静脉滴注;顺铂25mg/m2,第1～3天,静脉滴注。NP组27例,长春瑞滨25mg/m2,第1、第8天,静脉推注;顺铂25mg/m2,第1～3天,静脉滴注,21d为1个周期,治疗2个周期以上评定疗效,同时予水化、利尿等处理。结果GP组有效率44.8%,NP组有效率40.7%,两组差异无显著性(P>0.05)。骨髓抑制为两组的主要毒性反应,其中NP组白细胞下降发生率高于GP组(85.2%对51.7%,P<0.05),GP组血小板下降发生率高于NP组(82.8%对22.2%,P<0.05),NP组静脉炎反应较GP组重(29.6%对6.9%,P<0.05),两组比较差异有显著性。结论GP方案与NP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效显著,毒性反应各异,但可耐受。
Objective To compare the efficacy and toxicity of GP regimen and NP regimen in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Methods Fifty-six patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly divided into two groups: GP group (29 cases), gemcitabine (1.0-1.2 g / m2), intravenous drip on day 1 and day 8; Intravenous infusion. NP group, 27 cases, vinorelbine 25mg / m2, the first, the eighth day, intravenous injection; cisplatin 25mg / m2, the first 3 days, intravenous drip, 21d for a period of more than 2 cycles Assessment of efficacy, at the same time to hydration, diuretic and other treatment. Results The effective rate of GP group was 44.8%, and that of NP group was 40.7%. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Myelosuppression was the major toxic reaction in both groups. The incidence of leukopenia in NP group was higher than that in GP group (85.2% vs 51.7%, P <0.05). The incidence of thrombocytopenia in GP group was higher than that in NP group (82.8% vs 22.2% P <0.05). The phlebitis reaction in NP group was heavier than that in GP group (29.6% vs. 6.9%, P <0.05). There was significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion GP and NP regimens are effective in treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different toxicities but tolerable.