晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

晚期胃腺癌放疗联合化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

胃癌的术后5年生存率很低,大约有2/3的全胃切除术后患者局部复发[1-2].由于胃癌起病隐匿,早期症状不典型,确诊时许多患者已属晚期,失去手术机会,需要采用以全身化疗为主的综合治疗[3].我们对2003年1月至2006年12月收治的、不能手术的晚期胃癌患者分别行三维适形放疗联合紫杉醇、奥沙利铂化疗和单纯化疗,并进行疗效比较,现将结果报告如下.     

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.     

Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy

The selection of an antineoplastic regimen for an oncology patient is based first on the availability of effective drugs and then on a balancing of potential treatment-related toxicities with the patient's clinical condition and associated comorbidities. Liver function abnormalities are commonly observed in this patient population and identifying their etiology is often difficult. Immunosuppression, paraneoplastic phenomena, infectious diseases, metastases, and poly-pharmacy may cloud the picture. While criteria for standardizing liver injury have been established, dose modifications often rely on empiric clinical judgment. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of hepatotoxic manifestations for the most common chemotherapeutic agents is essential. We herein review the hepatotoxicity of commonly used antineoplastic agents and regimens.     

Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy

Patients who will receive chemotherapy require careful assessment of liver function prior to treatment to determine which drugs are not appropriate, and which drugs need dose modification. However, if the hepatic parenchymal abnormalities are caused by an underlying neoplasm and the neoplasm is sensitive to the drugs, it may not be necessary to reduce the dose. Clearly, this is an area where clinical judgment must be used to assess the risk/benefit ratio. Treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) involves either the nucleoside analogue lamivudine or interferon alpha. The advantage of lamivudine includes limited adverse effects and the fact that histological improvement has been documented in the majority of patients. Primary prophylaxis with lamivudine may be a well tolerated and effective method to reduce the frequency of chemotherapy-induced HBV reactivation in chronic HbsAg carriers. HbsAg screening is necessary before beginning chemotherapy for non Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. However, the main problem with long-term lamivudine therapy is the emergence of genotypic resistance because of base pair substitution at specific sites within the YMDD locus of the DNA polymerase gene. Significant hepatic dysfunction is uncommon among hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected patients treated with chemotherapy for hematological malignancies. However, infection with elevated AST levels is a significant risk factor for veno-occlusive disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clinical judgment and a high index of suspicion remain critical tools in preventing and treating hepatic manifestations of cancer chemotherapy.     

Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy

After assessment of tumor histology, the next important factor to consider in the selection of a chemotherapy regime is organ function. Patients who are to receive chemotherapy require careful assessment of liver function prior to treatment to determine which drugs may not be appropriate, and which drug doses should be modified. Following therapy abnormalities of liver function tests may be due to the therapy rather than to progressive disease, and this distinction is of critical importance. Furthermore, not all abnormalities in liver function are due to the tumor or its treatment, and other processes, such as hepatitis, must be kept in mind. This article reviews the hepatic toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents, and suggests dose modifications based upon liver function abnormalities. Emphasis is placed on agents known to be hepatotoxic, and those agents with hepatic metabolism.     

诱导化疗联合同步放化疗治疗鼻咽癌的临床观察

目的探讨诱导化疗联合同步放化疗治疗鼻咽癌患者的近期、远期疗效和安全性。方法选取2010年1月至2012年1月间收治的54例中晚期鼻咽癌患者,按照就诊顺序编号随机分为观察组和对照组,每组各27例。观察组患者实施同步放化疗,对照组患者采用诱导化疗。治疗结束后,对近期、远期疗效和不良反应进行比较。结果入选患者均完成治疗,其中观察组患者治疗有效率为88.9%,对照组为85.2%,组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组患者3年总生存率、3年无瘤生存率与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);局部复发率、远处转移率与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。观察组患者血小板减少和恶心呕吐发生率与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);白细胞减少、放射性皮炎和口腔黏膜炎等发生率组间在两组间差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论同步放化疗治疗鼻咽癌有效率与诱导化疗相当,且能改善患者生存情况,降低局部复发、远处转移率,安全性高,值得推广。     

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.