吉西他滨或培美曲塞联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床比较研究

目的比较吉西他滨或培美曲塞联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）的临床疗效及毒副作用。方法将29例晚期NSCLC随机分为吉西他滨加顺铂组（GC）15例和培关曲塞加顺铂组（PC）14例。GC组吉西他滨1250mg／m^2,d1,8;顺铂75mg／m^2,d1～3。PC组培关曲塞500mg／m^2,d1;顺铂75mg／m^2,d1～3,两组均为每21d一个周期重复。结果吉西他滨加顺铂组和培美曲塞加顺铂组有效率分别为46．7％和42．9％,两组之间有效率无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。培美曲塞加顺铂组粒细胞减少的发生率小于吉西他滨加顺铂组。结论培美曲塞联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效与吉西他滨加顺铂的疗效相当．但副作用明显减少．可以作为临床一线治疗．     

培美曲赛和长春瑞滨分别联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的临床研究

目的:对比培美曲塞与长春瑞滨分别联合顺铂在一线治疗晚期肺腺癌患者中的近期疗效和不良反应.方法:56例Ⅲ～Ⅳ期经病理组织学和(或)细胞学检查确诊的肺腺癌患者,培美曲赛组25例,长春瑞滨组31例.分别给予培美曲赛联合顺铂方案和长春瑞滨联合顺铂方案治疗.结果:两组客观缓解率和疾病控制率差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);Ⅲ～Ⅳ级血液学毒性反应发生率培美曲赛组低于对长春瑞滨组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的疗效与长春瑞滨联合顺铂近期的疗效相似,毒副反应较轻.     

培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的临床研究

目的 比较培美曲塞联合顺铂与多西他赛联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的近期疗效、无进展生存期及毒副反应.方法 76例晚期肺腺癌(ⅢB/Ⅳ期)患者随机分为培美曲塞联合顺铂(PC)组和多西他赛联合顺铂(DC)组,每组各38例.PC组:培美曲塞500 mg/m2,d1;DC组:多西他赛75 mg/m2,d1.两组顺铂均为25 mg/m2,d1 ～3;每21 d为1个周期.两组均治疗2周期后评价疗效及毒副反应.对所有患者的近期疗效、1年生存率、无进展生存期及毒副反应进行随访及组间比较.结果 PC组近期有效率为42.1％,中位无进展生存期6.9月,1年生存率55.3％;DC组近期有效率为36.8％,中位无进展生存期6.2月,1年生存率47.4％;两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P均＞0.05).PC组患者Ⅲ～IV度血液学毒性发生率明显低于DC组患者(P＜0.05).结论 培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌有稳定的疗效,更低的毒副反应.     

培美曲塞或紫杉醇联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的随机对照研究

目的:观察培关曲塞或紫杉醇联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的近期疗效和毒副反应.方法:将符合入组标准的60例晚期肺腺癌患者随机分为两组,观察组30例采用培美曲塞联合顺铂治疗,对照组30例采用紫杉醇联合顺铂治疗,2个周期后评价疗效及不良反应.结果:观察组总有效率36.67%,对照组30.00%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).Ⅲ～Ⅳ级血液学毒性反应发生率观察组低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌疗效与紫杉醇联合顺铂相当,血液学毒性较低.     

培美曲塞、多西他赛联合顺铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌疗效比较

目的比较培美曲塞联合顺铂(PEM+CDP)与多西他赛联合顺铂(DOC+CDP)一线治疗晚期肺腺癌患者的临床疗效及不良反应。方法经组织学和(或)细胞学病理诊断为肺腺癌,分期为ⅢB～Ⅳ期患者共32例,随机分为培美曲塞联合顺铂组(PC组)和多西他赛联合顺铂组(DC组),每组各16例。PC组:第1天PEM 500mg/m2,静脉滴注;顺铂25mg/m2,连续3天静脉滴注,每21天为1个周期。DC组:第1天DOC 75mg/m2,静脉滴注;顺铂25mg/m2,连续3天静脉滴注,每21天为1个周期。接受治疗2个周期后评价临床疗效及不良反应。结果 PC组和DC组有效率(RR)分别为43.8%及37.5%,疾病控制率(DCR)分别为75%及68.8%,差异均无显著性。两组患者均出现程度不等的乏力、消化道反应、肝酶升高等不良反应。PC组Ⅲ～Ⅳ级白细胞减少的发生率明显低于DC组。结论培美曲塞联合顺铂方案与多西他赛联合顺铂方案治疗晚期肺腺癌均具有较好的近期疗效,含培美曲塞方案不良反应小,患者更能耐受。     

培美曲塞分别联合奈达铂或者顺铂在晚期肺腺癌的临床观察

目的评价培美曲塞联合奈达铂在晚期肺腺癌一线化疗的疗效及不良反应。方法回顾性分析我院2008年6月至2013年6月收治的晚期肺腺癌72例,按纳入标准及用药方案,分为研究组和对照组,两组均给予培美曲塞500 mg/m2静脉滴注化疗,d1,研究组联合奈达铂80 mg/m2静脉滴注,d2,对照组予顺铂80 mg/m2静脉滴注化疗,d2,至少化疗2周期后评价疗效。结果研究组和对照组在近期疗效比较无统计学差异,ORR分别为51.5%和53.8%,DCR分别为63.6%和71.8%。不良反应比较,3⁴级毒性研究组以中性粒细胞减少、血小板下降为主,对照组以恶心呕吐、肾功能异常为主,差异有统计学意义。结论培美曲赛联合奈达铂或者顺铂在晚期肺腺癌一线化疗疗效相似,但毒副反应各有不同,可根据患者不同情况选择合适的治疗方案。     

奈达铂联合培美曲塞对晚期肺腺癌的疗效

目的 探讨奈达铂联合培美曲塞对晚期肺腺癌的疗效.方法 选取2018年1月至2020年3月我院收治的40例晚期肺腺癌患者,随机分为两组.对照组使用顺铂联合培美曲塞,观察组使用奈达铂联合培美曲塞.比较两组的临床疗效和不良反应发生情况.结果 观察组晚期肺腺癌的有效率明显高于对照组(P＜0.05);观察组和对照组不良反应发生情...     

培美曲塞及吉西他滨分别联合顺铂治疗初治晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床效果

目的比较培美曲塞及吉西他滨分别联合顺铂治疗初治晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床效果。方法选取我院的186例初治晚期非小细胞肺癌患者为研究对象,随机将其分为培美曲塞联合顺铂组(培美曲塞组,n=93)和吉西他滨联合顺铂组(吉西他滨组,n=93)。分析两组的临床疗效。结果两组患者的总缓解率及生存情况比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。培美曲塞组的恶心呕吐、血红蛋白含量减少、血小板减少发生率均显著高于吉西他滨组,皮疹、粒细胞减少发生率均显著低于吉西他滨组(P<0.05)。结论培美曲塞联合顺铂与吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗初治晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床效果相当。     

培美曲塞治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效分析

比较培美曲塞与吉西他滨分别联合卡铂对老年晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的临床疗效及毒副反应。将86例老年晚期NSCLC患者随机分为研究组和对照组各43例,研究组采用培美曲塞联合卡铂治疗,对照组采用吉西他滨联合卡铂治疗,治疗2个周期后,比较两组的临床疗效及毒副反应。研究组客观有效率(ORR)、疾病控制率(DCR)与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);研究组WBC减少、贫血、血小板降低及胃肠道反应Ⅲ~Ⅳ级发生率均明显低于对照组(P0.05)。培美曲塞与吉西他滨分别联合卡铂治疗老年NSCLC取得的临床疗效相当,但培美曲塞联合卡铂的毒副反应较吉西他滨联合卡铂相对较轻,值得临床推荐使用。     

博来霉素胸腔灌注联合培美曲塞＋顺铂全身化学治疗肺腺癌晚期合并恶性胸腔积液的效果分析

目的 评价博来霉素胸腔内灌注联合培美曲塞＋顺铂方案全身化疗治疗晚期肺腺癌合并胸膜腔转移及恶性胸腔积液的临床效果.方法 肺腺癌合并恶性胸腔积液患者42例,首次采用博来霉素45 mg胸腔保留灌注,同期应用培美曲塞500 mg/m2＋顺铂75 mg/m2,之后每3周重复培美曲塞＋顺铂方案序贯化疗,治疗第4周期评价疗效及毒副作用.结果 42例患者均可评价疗效,完全缓解者16例,部分缓解者18例,无效者3例,其有效率为80.95％ （34/42）,完全缓解率38.10％ （16/42）.结论 博来霉素胸腔内灌注联合培美曲塞＋顺铂方案全身化疗治疗晚期肺腺癌恶性胸腔积液疗效显著,毒性反应较轻.     

Ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine in cisplatin-treated patients with ovarian cancer

Female patients with ovarian cancer are at high risk for emesis. A study evaluating the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron plus dexamethasone compared to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine in this group of patients has been performed. A group of 63 patients with ovarian cancer undergoing cisplatin treatment were enrolled in the study. Vomiting, nausea and other side-effects were evaluated by the investigators during the first 24 h and recorded by the patients on a diary card on days 2–4. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone showed a higher antiemetic activity during the first 24 h after cisplatin administration in all three cycles of cisplatin treatment, giving over 90% complete protection from vomiting at the first cycle. The efficacy of ondansetron plus dexamethasone decreased at the second cycle, but the percentage of complete protection from vomiting always remained better than 70%; there was poorer protection in the metoclopramide group, and its effect was similar during all three cycles. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone was also found to be more efficacious than the metoclopramide regimen on the second day after cisplatin administration, while on days 3–4 a high rate of complete protection from emesis was achieved by both antiemetic therapies (>80%). About 40%–55% of patients receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone and about 65%–85% of patients treated with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine reported nausea or vomiting during days 1–4. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is more efficacious than metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine but new strategies to improve antiemetic efficacy in ovarian cancer patients must be outlined.     

Fenofibrate plus simvastatin therapy versus simvastatin plus cholestyramine therapy for familial hypercholesterolaemia

Combination therapy is routinely used to achieve improved cholesterol reduction in familial hypercholesterolaemia. We compared the standard simvastatin plus bile-acid sequestrant (cholestyramine) therapy with simvastatin plus fenofibrate in 29 patients with severe familial hypercholesterolaemia. The fibrate regimen resulted in an 35.1 +/- 10.7% reduction in total cholesterol, a 40.6 +/- 20.5% in LDL cholesterol, 17.2 +/- 56.5% reduction in triglycerides and a 20.3 +/- 52.0% increase in HDL cholesterol. The cholestyramine regimen produced reductions of 29.3 +/- 13.2% in cholesterol, 37.1 +/- 21.9% in LDL cholesterol, and 12.5 +/- 48.9% in triglycerides, and a 5.0 +/- 25.4% rise in HDL cholesterol. The fibrate regimen was significantly more effective in reducing total cholesterol (p < 0.001) and LDL-cholesterol (p = 0.004), and also reduced triglycerides significantly (p = 0.05), compared to the cholestyramine regimen. There were significant improvements in the LDL:HDL cholesterol ratio (3.62 +/- 1.54 vs. 4.00 +/- 1.36; p = 0.05) and in the apolipoprotein B:A1 ratio (1.13 +/- 0.036 vs. 1.20 +/- 0.34; p = 0.05). Gastrointestinal side-effects occurred in 10 patients on cholestyramine therapy, and four patients on fibrate therapy had myalgia. There were no cases of rhabdomyolysis with either regime. No significant differences in liver biochemistry or creatine kinase were seen with either regimen.