放疗联合5-Fu和顺铂治疗晚期鼻咽癌临床观察

目的 观察放疗联合氟尿嘧啶(5-Fu)+顺铂(DDP)治疗晚期鼻咽癌的临床疗效.方法 1998年9月至2002年10月对36例Ⅲ、Ⅳa期鼻咽癌患者治疗应用氟尿嘧啶+顺铂联合放疗,并与同期行单纯放疗的28例患者进行对比分析.结果 化疗+放疗组和单纯放疗组鼻咽肿瘤完全消退率分别为91.7%和85.7%(P<0.05);颈部转移淋巴结完全消退率分别为63.9%和50%;两组3年生存率分别为63.9%和46.4%(P<0.05).结论 氟尿嘧啶+顺铂化疗和同期放疗等综合治疗能提高晚期鼻咽癌患者的生存率、局部控制率,减少远处转移.     

放疗同期紫杉醇化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌临床研究

目的探讨紫杉醇同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌（T4N2～3M0）的临床疗效及不良反应。方法 2005年1月至2006年5月我院收治经病理确诊为低分化鳞癌的鼻咽癌患者,按福州分期T4N2～3M0,共60例,随机分为同期放化疗组（30例）和单纯放疗组（30例）。同期放化组化疗方案：在放疗同时给予紫杉醇60mg,每周1次,共7次;放疗方案同单纯放疗组。结果放疗结束后3个月,同期放化组、单纯放疗组鼻咽肿瘤完全消退率分别为93.3%和86.7%（P〉0.05）,1,2,3年局控率同期放化组、单纯放疗组分别为93.3%、86.7%、66.7%和90.9%、63.3%、43.3%。1,2,3年生存率分别为96.7%、83.3%、76.7%和86.7%、66.7%、53.3%。同期放化组的白细胞下降、消化道反应等毒性副反应明显高于单纯放疗组（P〈0.05）,但不延长放疗总疗程。结论同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌有助于提高生存率,减少局部复发和远处转移。     

中晚期鼻咽癌放疗与放化疗对照研究

[目的]探讨联合放化疗对中晚期鼻咽癌近远期疗效的影响,并与单独放疗比较.[方法]120例Ⅲ、Ⅳ期鼻咽癌患者随机分成单纯放疗组(RT)及放化联合治疗组(RT CT),两组均接受68Gy～72Gy照射量,放化组同时接受4个周期的化疗,方案为PF方案.[结果]单放组5年生存率为30.6%,联合放化组为36.7%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),5年无病生存率单放组为21.1%,联合放化组为28.6%,差异无统计学意义.癌灶消退联合放化组优于单放组,癌灶完全消退时放射剂量联合放化组低于单放组,两者差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),联合放化组远处转移率明显低于单放组(P<0.05).[结论]同期放化疗未能提高中晚期鼻咽癌5年生存率,但能提高局部控制率,降低远处转移率及推迟转移时间.     

诱导化疗联合同期放化疗治疗47例局部晚期鼻咽癌

[目的]评价诱导化疗联合同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的近期疗效。[方法]2005年3月至2006年11月局部晚期鼻咽癌患者93例随机分成两组。治疗组47例行紫杉醇+顺铂诱导化疗1个周期后行根治性放疗,同期予紫杉醇每周方案治疗;对照组46例行单纯根治性放疗。[结果]治疗组和对照组在治疗结束时及结束后3个月的鼻咽肿瘤完全消退率分别为74.5%、47.8%和85.1%、65.2%,淋巴结完全消退率分别为78.7%、52.2%和89.4%、69.6%,治疗组病灶消退率优于对照组(P<0.05)。治疗组和对照组2年总生存率分别为80.9%、69.6%,差异无统计学意义。治疗组的急性毒副反应增加,以骨髓抑制和口腔黏膜炎为主,但均可耐受。[结论]诱导化疗+同期放化疗可提高局部晚期鼻咽癌的病灶完全消退率,急性毒副反应可耐受,但能否提高远期生存率有待进一步观察。     

放疗同期卡莫氟化疗治疗局部中晚期鼻咽癌疗效评价

探讨联合应用诱导化疗和放疗同期口服卡莫氟治疗局部中晚期鼻咽癌的疗效及不良反应。将收治的70例局部中晚期鼻咽癌患者随机分为诱导化疗后放疗组（对照组）和诱导化疗后放疗同期卡莫氟治疗组（治疗组）两组,两组均为35例,两组患者放疗前均接受2个疗程诱导化疗,治疗组在放疗期间同时口服卡莫氟。鼻咽肿瘤及颈部淋巴结完全消退率治疗组明显高于对照组,P〈0.05。3和5年内局部复发率治疗组明显低于对照组,分别是11.4%、22.9%和34.3%、48.6%,差异有统计学意义,P〈0.05。3年生存率治疗组和对照组分别是77.1%和51.4%,P〈0.05。初步研究结果提示,放疗同期口服卡莫氟治疗局部中晚期鼻咽癌,降低了鼻咽和颈部肿瘤完全消退的照射剂量,提高了鼻咽和颈部肿瘤的完全缓解率,抑制或延缓肿瘤复发和远处转移,尽管患者的不良反应加重,但可以耐受。其远期疗效有待于进一步证实。     

同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的临床研究

目的:评价同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的临床疗效及毒副反应。方法:118例局部晚期鼻咽癌患者,用抽签法随机分为放化组(60例)和单放组(58例),放化组常规放疗同时给予顺铂(DDP)+亚叶酸钙(CF)+5氟尿嘧啶(5FU)化疗2～3个周期;单放组行常规放疗。结果:118例患者全部完成治疗,鼻咽肿瘤完全缓解率放化组和单放组分别为90.0%(54/60)和70.7%(41/58),差异有统计学意义,P=0.008;颈淋巴结完全缓解率放化组和单放组分别为85.2%(46/54)和60.0%(30/50),差异有统计学意义,P=0.004;放化组3和5年生存率明显高于单放组,P值分别为0.007和0.017;放化组毒副反应明显高于单放组,放化组远处转移率明显低于单放组,P=0.022;两组晚期损伤及并发症比较无统计学意义。结论:同期放化疗治疗能提高局部晚期鼻咽癌的生存率和局部控制率,减少远处转移;放化联合治疗毒性反应可耐受。     

不同方案化疗结合调强放疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌临床病理回顾性分析

目的:探讨不同化疗方案结合调强放射治疗局部区域晚期鼻咽癌的相关毒副反应及疗效.方法:回顾性分析213例局部晚期鼻咽癌惠者,按与调强放疗结合的不同方式分为单纯放疗组61例、DDP同期放化疗组54例、DDP+5-FU(PF)方案诱导化疗联合DDP同期放化疗组66例、紫杉醇+Carboplatin(TC)方案诱导化疗联合DDP同期放化疗组32例.调强放射治疗采用同期整合加量技术治疗.比较各组患者的肿瘤控制情况和治疗毒副反应.结果:各组患者5年总生存率分别为82.4%、78.9%、84.0%、77.2%(P=0.950),无瘤生存率75.0% 、74.6%、82.3 %、74.0%(P=0.891),无局部复发率90.2%、96.2%、98.4%、90.4%(P=0.226),无远处转移率83.2%、77.8%、83.9%、83.7%(P=0.798).治疗相关毒副反应主要为骨髓抑制、胃肠道反应和放射性黏膜炎,前两者化疗组与单纯放疗组差异有统计学意义.影响预后的多因素分析结果显示,总生存率仅与N分期相关.结论:与单纯调强放射治疗相比,PF和TC诱导化疗、DDP单药同期化疗或者两者序贯联合均未能提高肿瘤局部区域控制率和生存率,胃肠道和骨髓毒副反应有所增加.     

局部晚期鼻咽癌同时放、化疗疗效观察

目的:观察同期放、化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的近期疗效、生存率、局部控制率、远处转移率和毒副反应。方法:60例局部晚期鼻咽癌为综合治疗组,分别在放疗第1,5周及放疗后1周给予DDP30mg/m21天～3天,5-Fu500mg/m21天～5天化疗共4～5个周期,另配对选取60例单纯放疗者为对照组,两组放疗方法相同。结果:综合组与单放组鼻咽肿瘤完全消退率分别为93%和84.2%(P>0.05),颈部淋巴结完全消退率分别为87.2%和59.8%(P<0.05),3年生存率分别为75.2%和48.3%(P<0.05),3年局控率分别为87.2%和70.3%(P<0.05),3年远处转移率分别为17.2%和38.8%(P<0.05)。综合组白细胞减少症、胃肠道反应和口腔粘膜反应较单放组多且明显(P<0.05),但可接受。结论:同期放、化疗与辅助化疗有助于提高局部控制率和生存率,减少远处转移率。     

N晚期鼻咽癌调强放疗远期疗效评价

目的 评价N晚期鼻咽癌根治性调强放疗(IMRT)的远期疗效及IMRT联合不同化疗模式对N晚期鼻咽癌患者预后影响。
方法 回顾分析2001-2008年间收治的179例N晚期鼻咽癌患者临床资料,其中单纯IMRT 33例,放化疗146例(同期放化疗71例、诱导化疗加同期放化疗66例,同期放化疗加辅助化疗9例)。
结果 随访率96.5%,随访时间满5年者133例。全组5年总生存率为69.0%。单纯IMRT和放化疗的5年总生存率、无远处转移生存率、无复发生存率、无进展生存率分别为47.7%和73.7%(χ²=13.91,P=0.000)、49.2%和68.3%(χ²=4.97,P=0.026)、74.5%和92.4%(χ²=9.87,P=0.002)、37.5%和65.1%(χ²=11.65,P=0.001),放化疗中同期放化疗、诱导化疗加同期放化疗、同期放化疗加辅助化疗的生存率相似,但诱导化疗加同期放化疗的无远处转移生存率比单纯IMRT的高(χ²=4.65,P=0.031)。
结论 N晚期鼻咽癌患者单纯IMRT后远处转移率仍较高,诱导化疗加IMRT联合同期化疗也许是较为合理的治疗手段。     

化疗依从性对局邵晚期鼻咽癌患者疗效影响的研究

目的 评价化疗依从性对诱导+同期放化疗与诱导化放疗治疗局部晚期(Ⅲ、Ⅳ_a期)鼻咽癌疗效的影响.方法 对400例患者经意向性治疗(ITT)分析后选择依从性较好的314例进行符合方案集(PP)分析.将314例患者分为诱导+同期放化疗组(127例)和诱导化放疗组(187例),其中诱导加同期放化组为完成全部两程诱导化疗和至少两程同期化疗,诱导化放组为完成全部两程诱导化疗.放疗采用传统二维放疗技术,全组均采用~(60)Co γ线或直线加速器6～8 MV X射线照射,颈后三角区域应用8～12 MeV电子线治疗.诱导化疗采用氟尿嘧啶脱氧核苷+卡铂联合,同期化疗采用单药卡铂.结果 随访率为96.2%,随访满3年者295例.诱导+同期放化疗组的3+4级毒副反应发生率比诱导化放疗组要高(23.6%:13.4%;χ~2=5.50,P=0.019)且后者无4级反应.两组3年总生存率(78.1%:84.6%)、无瘤生存率(74.3%:70.1%)、无局部区域复发生存率(89.7%:89.5%)和无远处转移生存率(78.9%:76.5%)均相似(χ~2=0.61、0.12、0.10、0.05,P=0.435、0.731、0.748、0.825).结论 对局部晚期鼻咽癌患者,诱导+同期放化疗与诱导化放疗方案的3年生存率相似但严重毒副反应发生率高.     

The future of chemotherapy at home--from outpatient chemotherapy to chemotherapy at home

Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer has changed greatly. A continuous systemic chemotherapy like FOLFOX or FOLFIRI became a standard. It is necessary to get sufficient knowledge and technique of chemotherapy for an infusion port system and a portable pump system. The risk management aspect is very important. Both strict and steady drug mixing and an administration system are necessary. It is also important to make a 24-hour surveillance system for any unusual conditions. The hospital as a whole must come to grips with these problems. The chemotherapy at an outpatient clinic or home will become a standard in the near future because it preserves the patients' QOL.     

Rationalization of adjuvant chemotherapy by induction chemotherapy

An induction chemotherapy, before any local treatment, allows to precise the chemosensitivity of the primary tumor. These data may help to improve indication and type of a further adjuvant chemotherapy. However there are many biological differences between different sites of the same tumor and along the time, without or after treatment. It is thus impossible to be sure that a chemotherapeutic regimen effective as first treatment on the primary will be equally active on micro-metastases some months later. Many questions in this field will be answered only by controlled studies and careful observations.     

Regional chemotherapy

Regional chemotherapy is an interesting treatment option in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer but cannot be considered standard treatment, and it should not be performed outside controlled clinical trials. The real value of regional chemotherapy must be evaluated in larger, randomized trials. New drug combinations may reduce the observed side effects and improve tumor response. Gene therapy with p53 and K-ras modulated herpesviruses may become a palliative treatment option and can be administered easily by regional chemotherapy techniques [23].     

Hepatic-arterial chemotherapy

The liver is a common site of metastases from cancers from most sites, but particularly from the gastrointestinal tract, since the portal vein drains into the liver. About half of all patients with colorectal cancer develop liver metastases. The response of liver metastases to systemic combination chemotherapy has improved, but the 2-year survival is only 25-30%. Hepatic-arterial infusion of chemotherapy produces higher response rates, with a 2-year survival of 50-60%. In patients who can undergo liver resection followed by hepatic-arterial infusion, the 2-year survival is 85%. This review summarises the anatomical basis, pharmacokinetic background, and cost-effectiveness of this procedure. We discuss the phase II and phase III studies of hepatic-arterial infusion therapy, with a focus on liver metastases from colorectal cancer.     

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy

A fact that the Second International Conference of Intracavitary Chemotherapy was held at Sandiego in 1988 clearly suggests that the intraperitoneal chemotherapy attracts again the attention as a new administration route aimed at complete cure and useful modality against refractory intraabdominal cancer. Basic problems (peritoneal circulation, importance of peritoneal clearance, conditions required for ip infusion and penetration depth from the tumor surface) are described. As to ip infusion of CDDP, pharmacokinetic characteristics (iv vs ip), the difference of ultrafiltrable Pt. value (chemical assay vs biological assay) and clinical notes are reviewed. Several clinical trials now on going (CDDP-STS combination, CDDP-STS-Angiotensin II, CHPP and IPCP) are introduced. Finally the future direction of intraperitoneal chemotherapy is discussed.