论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较奈达铂和顺铂联合依托泊苷治疗小细胞肺癌(SCLC)的近期疗效和安全性。方法:选择2012年5月至2013年8月在我院确诊为小细胞肺癌的59例患者为研究对象,将其随机分为两组。奈达铂组给予奈达铂80 mg/m2静滴,d1;依托泊苷100mg/m2静滴,d1;3周为1周期。顺铂组给予顺铂25 mg/m2静滴,d1~3;依托泊苷剂量及用法同奈达铂组。参照RECIST 1.0和NCI 3.0标准评价和比较两组的近期疗效和不良反应的发生情况。结果:奈达铂组的客观有效率为51.6%,顺铂组为46.4%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.691)。奈达铂组与顺铂组血小板、白细胞降低及贫血的发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但奈达铂组胃肠道反应及肾功能异常的发生率明显低于顺铂组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:奈达铂联合依托泊苷治疗小细胞肺癌的疗效与顺铂联合依托泊苷相当,但其胃肠道反应和肾毒性的更少,安全性更高。
Objective: To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of nedaplatin and cisplatin plus etoposide in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Methods: Fifty-nine patients with small cell lung cancer diagnosed in our hospital from May 2012 to August 2013 were selected as study subjects and randomly divided into two groups. Nedaplatin group was given nedaplatin 80 mg / m2 intravenous infusion, d1; etoposide 100mg / m2 intravenous infusion, d1; 3 weeks for a cycle. Cisplatin given cisplatin 25 mg / m2 intravenous drip, d1 ~ 3; etoposide dose and usage of the same group with nedaplatin. The RECIST 1.0 and NCI 3.0 criteria were used to evaluate and compare the short-term efficacy and adverse reactions of the two groups. Results: The objective effective rate was 51.6% in the nedaplatin group and 46.4% in the cisplatin group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.691). There was no significant difference in the incidence of platelet, leukopenia and anemia between nedaplatin group and cisplatin group (P> 0.05), but the incidence of gastrointestinal reaction and renal dysfunction in nedaplatin group was significantly lower than that of cisplatin Group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: The efficacy of nedaplatin combined with etoposide in the treatment of small cell lung cancer is comparable to that of cisplatin combined with etoposide, but less gastrointestinal and nephrotoxicity and higher safety.