基于倾向性评分匹配法比较培美曲塞或多西他赛联合顺铂治疗Ⅳ期肺腺癌的临床疗效

目的 比较培美曲塞或多西他赛联合顺铂治疗表皮生长因子受体(epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR)突变状态未知的Ⅳ期肺腺癌的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2011年1月至2015年12月贵州医科大学附属医院和贵州省肿瘤医院收治的147例Ⅳ期肺腺癌患者的临床资料。采用倾向性评分匹配法,均衡组间混杂因素后比较培美曲塞+顺铂化疗方案(PP组)与多西他赛+顺铂化疗方案(DP组)的疗效和安全性。结果 倾向性评分匹配后,PP组与DP组的客观缓解率比较差异无统计学意义(60.0% vs 60.0%, χ²<0.001,P>0.999),两组疾病控制率比较差异亦无统计学意义(86.7% vs 82.5%,χ²=0.284,P=0.594);PP组中位OS优于DP组(17.0个月 vs 9.0个月, χ² =4.411,P=0.036),中位PFS亦优于DP组(8.0个月 vs 5.0个月, χ²=4.299,P=0.038);PP组死亡风险较DP组降低52.4%(HR=0.476,95%CI:0.282~0.805,P=0.006);Ⅲ~Ⅳ级中性粒细胞减少发生率低于DP组(28.9% vs 64.4%, χ²=11.429,P=0.001)。结论 在EGFR突变状态未知的Ⅳ期肺腺癌中,培美曲塞+顺铂化疗方案较多西他赛+顺铂化疗方案的临床疗效和预后更好。     

新辅助化疗对进展期胃癌手术疗效的影响

目的 探讨新辅助化疗对进展期胃癌手术安全性的影响及近期疗效分析。方法 收集2012年3月至2016年3月广西医科大学附属肿瘤医院收治的Ⅲ期胃癌患者138例,行新辅助化疗50例（观察组）,直接手术治疗88例（对照组）,比较分析两组手术并发症的发生情况及近期疗效。结果 观察组和对照组术中输血、中转开腹、术中出血量、手术时间及淋巴结转移差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,联合脏器切除率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,术后主要并发症发生率比较差异亦无统计学意义（30.0%　vs　17.0%,P＞0.05）;单因素分析显示手术时间、出血量、新辅助化疗、术前化疗方案及周期等与术后并发症发生无关（P＞0.05）。观察组中位生存时间为36.9个月,对照组为30.9个月,两组生存曲线比较差异无统计学意义（P=0.317）;手术根治率差异有统计学意义（84.0% vs 68.2%,P=0.042）,术后12个月复发率差异亦有统计学意义（34.0% vs 52.3%,P=0.038）。结论 新辅助化疗不是影响胃癌术后并发症发生的因素,同时可提高进展期胃癌的根治性切除率,降低术后近期复发率,是一种安全有效的治疗手段。     

塞来昔布对鼻咽癌放化疗增敏的作用

目的  观察塞来昔布对鼻咽癌患者放化疗的增敏作用及安全性。 方法  选择2013年12月至2017年12月广西医科大学第三附属医院收治的73例鼻咽癌患者,按随机数字表法将其分为观察组38例和对照组35例,观察组采用同步放化疗联合塞来昔布治疗,对照组给予同步放化疗治疗,比较两组患者的近期疗效和安全性。结果  观察组患者肿瘤完全缓解率明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（57.9% vs 22.8%,χ²=7.849,P=0.005）;两组患者胃肠道反应、放射性损伤、肾功能损伤、骨髓抑制等不良反应发生率比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论  塞来昔布能提高鼻咽癌患者在同步放化疗中的完全缓解率,可取得较好的近期疗效,患者均可耐受。     

三维适形大分割放射治疗局部中晚期非小细胞肺癌的不良反应与长期生存分析

目的比较大分割与常规分割三维适形放射治疗局部晚期非小细胞肺癌的长期生存疗效及不良反应,并分析影响预后的因素。方法对我院自2000年1月至2004年1月收治行大分割放射治疗的75例和同期行常规分割放疗的83例非小细胞肺癌患者进行分析。放疗后3月内参照RECIST标准评价近期疗效,并对患者的急慢性放射损伤进行分级和评价,随访至2009年12月31日,计算1、3、5年生存期和生存率。采用SPSS11.5统计软件进行统计分析。结果两组患者各组变量均衡,全组患者1、3、5年生存率为44.9%、19.0%及11.7%;两组患者生存率比较差异未见统计学意义(χ²=3.33,P=0.068)。全组患者1、3、5年局部控制率为76.8%、48.1%及40.5%;两组患者局部控制率差异有统计学意义(χ²=3.80,P=0.041)。肿瘤最大直径、是否化疗、治疗时间、近期疗效为患者预后的独立影响因素。大分割放疗组与常规分割放疗组患者相比,前者治疗天数显著低于后者(χ²=3.93,P=0.047),近期疗效亦显著好于后者(χ²=9.649,P=0.022),两组患者2级以上放射性肺和食管损伤差异均无统计学意义。结论非小细胞肺癌的大分割放射治疗有较好的远期疗效,患者治疗时间减少,不良反应未见明显增加。     

紫杉醇联合卡铂与氟尿嘧啶联合卡铂治疗艾滋病并发晚期阴茎癌的临床对比分析

目的比较紫杉醇联合卡铂与5-氟尿嘧啶（5-Fu）联合卡铂治疗艾滋病并发晚期阴茎癌患者临床疗效、不良反应及预后。方法选择经病理或细胞学以及血清学证实的58例艾滋病并发晚期阴茎癌患者,其中30例接受紫杉醇联合卡铂方案化疗（TC组）,28例接受5-Fu联合卡铂方案化疗（FC组）,按实体瘤的疗效评价标准(RECIST)1.0版评价近期疗效,按美国癌症研究所常见毒性判定标准（NCI-CTC）3.0版评价不良反应。结果58例均可评估疗效,TC组和FC组的客观总有效率分别为56.7%和17.9%（χ²=9.265,P=0.002）,中位疾病进展时间分别为11.15月和7.22月（χ²=6.737,P=0.009）,中位生存时间分别为17.36月和9.11月（χ²=10.646,P=0.001）。两组主要不良反应均为骨髓抑制及恶心呕吐,Ⅲ～Ⅳ度白细胞减少发生率分别为46.4%和40.0%（χ²=0.222,P=0.637）,Ⅲ～Ⅳ度恶心呕吐的发生率分别为36.0%和34.78%（χ²=0.008,P=0.930）。结论紫杉醇联合卡铂化疗方案治疗艾滋病并发晚期阴茎癌是安全和有效的。     

左右半结肠癌患者临床病理特征分析

目的 分析左、右半结肠癌临床及病理特征。方法 回顾性分析我院2015年1月至2017年6月收治的570例经结肠镜检查与病理学证实为结肠癌患者的临床及病理资料，根据结肠癌发病部位分为左半结肠癌组与右半结肠癌组，比较两组患者临床及病理特征。 结果 临床特征方面，右半结肠癌患者与左半结肠癌患者在年龄、体重下降、便血、大便异常、腹胀腹疼、腹部包块、CEA和CA199方面比较，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。病理学特征方面，右半结肠癌患者肿瘤直径≥5 cm的比例大于左半结肠癌患者（χ²=11.235，P=0.031）；右半结肠癌患者隆起型、溃疡型、浸润型分别占4.0%、81.7%、14.3%，而左半结肠癌患者分别占17.8%、61.8%、20.4%，两组病理分型分布比较，差异有统计学意义（χ²=15.956，P=0.025）；右半结肠癌患者黏液腺癌、印戒细胞癌、未分化癌所占比例高于左半结肠癌患者，两组组织分型分布比较，差异亦有统计学意义（χ²=14.597，P=0.027）。结论 右半结肠癌较左半结肠癌分化更差，浸润和转移更强，恶性程度更高，临床应加以筛查和诊断。     

放疗联合甘氨双唑钠治疗骨转移性骨痛的疗效观察

目的 观察放疗联合甘氨双唑钠（CMNa）治疗骨转移性骨痛的疗效及不良反应。方法 选择58例晚期恶性肿瘤骨转移患者,按随机数字表法分为观察组（n=29）和对照组（n=29）。两组患者均接受姑息性放疗,观察组放疗的同时联合应用CMNa 800 mg/m²静滴30 min后1 h内行放疗,隔天1次,3次/周。放疗结束1个月后评价止痛疗效、KPS评分及不良反应。结果 观察组有效率（RR）高于对照组（93.1% vs 42.4%;χ²=4.350,P=0.037）;观察组KPS评分改善有效率高于对照组（93.1% vs 69.0%;χ²=5.497,P=0.019）;两组患者消化道反应、骨髓抑制的发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 放疗联合CMNa可提高骨转移性骨痛的治疗效果,且不增加不良反应。     

MMP-7、TIMP-2在食管癌组织的表达及预后关系

目的?探讨MMP7/TIMP-2表达与食管癌术后转移、复发以及和预后之间的关系。方法?使用组织芯片技术，采用免疫组化方法检测食管癌术后生存时间＞5年生存组（A组）和生存时间＜1年（B组）中MMP-7和TIMP-2阳性表达和高表达率的情况。结果?MMP-7在食管正常的鳞状上皮基底层不表达；在A组食管癌组织中呈弱阳性表达；在B组食管癌组织中呈中等以上阳性表达。MMP-7在A组的表达强度低于B组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。A组患者肿瘤组织中MMP-7表达率为85.5％（106/124），高表达率为27.4％(34/124)；B组肿瘤组织中MMP-7表达率为93.5%(58/62)，高表达率为56.5％（35/62）。A组MMP-7高表达率低于B组，差异有统计学意义（χ²＝14.930，P＜0.001）。TIMP-2在食管正常的鳞状上皮基底层不表达；在A组食管癌组织中呈弱阳性表达；在B组食管癌组织中呈中等以上阳性表达。TIMP-2在A组的表达强度低于B组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。A组患者肿瘤组织TIMP-2表达率为87.1％（108/124）,高表达率为22.2％(25/124)；B组肿瘤组织中TIMP-2表达率为98.3％（61/62），高表达率为40.3％(25/62)。A组TIMP-2高表达率低于B组，差异有统计学意义（χ²＝4.014，P=0.045）。结论?MMP-7/TIMP-2可作为评估食管癌术后转移和复发风险的指标，MMP-7有望成为食管癌治疗的靶点。     

同步放化疗与序贯放化疗治疗中晚期子宫颈癌的疗效观察

 目的 比较同步放化疗与序贯放化疗治疗中晚期子宫颈癌的疗效和不良反应。方法 回顾性分析我院收治的90例中晚期子宫颈癌患者,根据不同化疗方式分为同步放化疗组47例和序贯放化疗组43例,比较两组患者疗效及不良反应。结果 同步放化疗组和序贯放化疗组总有效率分别为91.5%（43/47）和86.1%（37/43）,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。同步放化疗组患者1年、1年生存率分别为74.5%、48.9%,序贯放化疗组分别为46.5%、23.3%（P＜0.05）。同步放化疗组的白细胞、中性粒细胞以及血小板减少等血液毒性发生率与序贯放化疗组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,同步放化疗组患者直肠反应、骨髓抑制和膀胱副反应等发生率高于序贯放化疗组（P＜0.05）。结论 同步放化疗治疗中晚期子宫颈癌与序贯放化疗治疗的近期疗效相近,前者可提高患者远期生存率,但不良反应发生率较高,经对症处理后患者均可耐受。     

热疗联合腹腔内灌注顺铂与胸腺五肽治疗恶性腹水的临床观察

目的 观察全身热疗联合腹腔内灌注顺铂与胸腺五肽治疗恶性腹水的临床疗效与安全性。方法 79例恶性腹水患者随机分为3组,顺铂组（A组,n=26例）予腹腔内灌注顺铂治疗;顺铂联合热疗组（B组,n=26例）予腹腔内灌注顺铂后30 min行全身热疗;顺铂与胸腺五肽联合热疗组（C组,n=27例）予腹腔内灌注顺铂和胸腺五肽混合液,30 min后行全身热疗。1周为1个疗程,共4个疗程,1周后复查并判定疗效。结果 C组的总有效率为77.80%,KPS评分提高率为85.19%,明显高于A组的42.30%、46.15%和B组的61.50%、69.23%,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）;B组与A组比较差异亦有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。C组毒副反应发生率为48.15%,与A组（53.85%）和B组（50.00%）比较差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）,A组和B组比较差异亦无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 全身热疗联合腹腔内灌注顺铂与胸腺五肽治疗恶性腹水临床效果良好,可改善患者生活质量。     

Ⅱ、Ⅲ期直肠癌新辅助放化疗与手术间隔时间对术后病理及临床疗效的影响

目的:探讨局部晚期直肠癌新辅助放化疗结束与手术的间隔时间对病理及临床疗效的影响。方法:回顾性分析2010年1月至2013年7月间接受新辅助放化疗随后行根治性手术的78例初治局部晚期直肠癌患者的临床资料。根据新辅助治疗结束至手术的间隔时间中位数分为两组,A组为新辅助放化疗结束后﹤7周手术治疗38例;B组为≥7周手术治疗40例。全部患者采用三维适形调强放疗,2Gy/1次, 5次/1周,总50Gy,同步行氟尿嘧啶为基础的化疗,比较两组患者肿瘤病理退缩分级（TGR）、降期率、手术并发症发生率、局部复发率、远处转移率和生存率。结果:TRG1、TRG2、TRG3、TRG4（PCR）A组分别为 9例、7例、10例、6例,B组分别为9例、9例、12例、8例（P=0.614）;T分期降期率A组63.2%,B组52.5%（P=0.368）,N分期降期率A组39.5%,B组55%（P=0.039）;手术并发症发生率A组18.4%,B组20%（P=0.550）;3年复发率A组7.9%,B组10%（P=0.745);远处转移率A组13.2%,B组10%（P=0.663）;3年生存率A组70.8%,B组84%（P=0.453）。结论:新辅助放化疗结束≥7周行手术,可以获得较高的淋巴结降期率,不增加手术难度和并发症发生率。     

ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌新辅助治疗联合手术对比根治性同步放化疗疗效及安全性的Meta分析

目的 系统评价ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌新辅助治疗联合手术与根治性同步放化疗模式有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方、中国知网和维普等数据库,查找新辅助治疗联合手术对比根治性同步放化疗ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌临床对照研究相关文献。使用Review Manager 5.3统计软件对生存资料及不良反应进行Meta分析。结果 纳入9篇文献,共计3914例患者。两组有相近总生存(HR=0.83,P=0.31)和无进展生存(HR=0.85,P=0.57);新辅助治疗组放射性肠炎发生率低(RR=0.27,P=0.03),但两组间放射性膀胱炎发生率(RR=0.30,P=0.34)和≥3级中性粒细胞骨髓抑制发生率(RR=0.77,P=0.46)相近。结论 ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌两种治疗模式生存获益相当,新辅助治疗组放射性肠炎发生率较低,但两组间放射性膀胱炎和≥3级中性粒细胞骨髓抑制发生率相近。新辅助治疗联合手术较标准治疗方案并未带来更多的优越性。     

Phase 2 randomized trial of primary endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared primary neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. The need for preoperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin or taxanes may be reduced in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive tumors. This randomized, controlled, phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with endocrine treatment with aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with ER-positive and/or PgR-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (n = 61) or exemestane 25 mg/day (n = 60) for 3 months or doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) with paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) (four 3-week cycles). Study end points included overall objective response determined by palpation, mammography, and ultrasound, and the number of patients who qualified for breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. RESULTS: Clinical objective response was 64% in the endocrine therapy and chemotherapy treatment groups. Median time to clinical response was 57 and 51 days with aromatase inhibitors and chemotherapy, respectively (P > .05). Rates of pathological complete response (3% vs 6%) and disease progression (9% vs 9%) did not differ significantly in the endocrine therapy or chemotherapy group, respectively (P > .05). Rates of breast-conserving surgery were slightly higher in the endocrine group (33% vs 24%; P = .058). The most frequent toxicities from chemotherapy were alopecia (79%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (33%), and grade 2 neuropathy (30%). Endocrine treatment was well tolerated. No deaths occurred during the preoperative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with aromatase inhibitors was well tolerated and resulted in rates similar to chemotherapy in overall objective response and breast-conserving surgery in postmenopausal women with ER-positive and/or PgR-positive tumors.     

Concomitant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: results from two consecutive phase II studies.

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies comparing induction chemotherapy followed by surgical resection with radiation alone found that the neoadjuvant approach produces better results. So far, this latter modality has not been compared with standard concomitant chemoradiation. The objective of this report was to compare the results of two consecutive phase II studies: neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or chemoradiation for the unresectable cases versus standard cisplatin-based chemoradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 1999 to July 1999, 41 patients with cervical carcinoma, stages IB2-IIIB, were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment consisted of three 21-day courses of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, followed by either surgery or concomitant chemoradiation for the non-operable cases. From August 1999 to December 1999, an equal number of patients having comparable clinicopathological characteristics were treated with six weekly courses of cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) during standard pelvic radiation. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were analyzed. Both groups were similar with regard to age, histology, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, tumor size, pretreatment hemoglobin levels, parametrial infiltration and performance status. In the neoadjuvant arm the overall response rate to induction chemotherapy was 95% (95% confidence interval 88% to 100%). Twenty-three patients had surgery and 14 underwent chemoradiation. In the definitive chemoradiation study, 38 patients completed treatment, the median number of cisplatin courses was six for a dose intensity of 33 mg/m(2)/week. Doses to points A and B were 85 Gy (range 68-95) and 55 Gy (range 51-65), respectively. Chemoradiation was delivered in 44.6 (range 28-113) days. Complete response rates after all treatment were similar: 97% and 87% in the neoadjuvant and chemoradiation groups, respectively. At a median follow-up of 28 (range 2-33) and 24 (range 3-30) months, respectively, there were no differences in overall survival. To date, 15 and 13 patients in the neoadjuvant and chemoradiation groups, respectively, have died of disease (P = 0.8567). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this non-randomized comparison suggest that induction chemotherapy followed by surgery or chemoradiation is at least as effective in terms of response and survival as standard cisplatin-based chemoradiation. A randomized study is needed to confirm these findings.     

新辅助放化疗后低位直肠癌术后吻合口漏危险因素分析

目的:探讨接受新辅助放化疗的患者行腹腔镜直肠癌低位前切除术（low anterior resection,LAR）术后发生吻合口漏的危险因素。方法:采用回顾性病例对照研究方法。收集2010年01月至2019年12月南通大学附属东台医院、苏州大学附属第一医院收治的146例cT3-4期和(或)N1-2期低位直肠癌患者临床资料。上述患者先行新辅助放化疗6~8周后行LAR术,所有肿瘤患者遵循全直肠系膜切除原则行根治性切除、低位保肛手术。根据收集的临床数据对比分析各组患者全身一般情况、肿瘤特征、检查指标及术后相关并发症发生率等,采用单因素和多因素分析方法探讨新辅助放化疗后低位直肠癌术后吻合口漏的危险因素。结果:新辅助放化疗后的低位直肠癌行腹腔镜直肠癌低位前切除术,整体吻合口漏发生率为 10.3%。通过单因素分析法,发现吻合口漏的发生在糖尿病、BMI、术前白蛋白、预防性回肠造口、保留左结肠血管、侧方淋巴结清扫不同的分组中存在差异（P均＜0.05）。进一步行Logistic回归多因素分析发现BMI(OR=1.172,95％CI:1.012～1.357,P=0.034）,术前白蛋白(OR=1.883,95％CI:1.001～3.993,P=0.037）,侧方淋巴结清扫(OR=10.353,95％CI:1.513~70.846,P=0.017）是术后发生吻合口漏的独立危险因素。结论:新辅助放化疗后低位直肠癌术后发生吻合口漏与患者的血糖水平、BMI指数、白蛋白、预防性回肠造口、保留左结肠血管、侧方淋巴结清扫等因素相关。对于肥胖、低蛋白血症、行侧方淋巴结清扫等危险因素的患者而言,术后发生吻合口漏的风险将增高;行预防性回肠造口、保留左结肠血管的患者吻合口漏的发生率可显著降低。     

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Versus Upfront Surgery in the Management of Recto-Sigmoid Junction Cancer

Introduction

The optimal management of locally advanced recto-sigmoid cancer is unclear. Although some experts advocate for upfront surgery, others recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. We used the National Cancer Database to characterize patterns-of-care and overall survival (OS) associated with these treatment strategies.

Ⅱ、Ⅲ期低位直肠癌新辅助治疗效果评价

目的 评价Ⅱ、Ⅲ期低位直肠癌新辅助治疗加手术与手术加术后辅助治疗的效果。方法 回顾分析本院2009—2013年收治的Ⅱ、Ⅲ期(T₃、T₄和/或N₁、N₂)低位直肠癌患者资料。根据治疗手段分为A、B组,A组为行新辅助治疗后行根治性手术切除患者共 98例,B组为直接行根治性手术切除后行术后辅助治疗患者共 93例。采用χ²检验或Fisher′s精确概率法进行组间比较,Kaplan-Meier法生存分析。结果 随访率92.1%,A组 3年LR、DM率均低于B组,分别为12.9%∶32.2%(P=0.002)、13.5%∶37.8%(P=0.001);A组生存期优于B组,3年OS、DFS率分别为84.7%∶69.9%(P=0.022)、77.6%∶50.3%(P=0.004)。结论 Ⅱ、Ⅲ期低位直肠癌患者新辅助治疗可明显降低LR、DM率,延长生存期,是安全可靠的治疗方案。     

Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by concurrent chemoradiation with twice-weekly gemcitabine in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: final results of a phase II study

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR) followed or preceded by full-dose chemotherapy seems to be a standard treatment for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine is a strong radiosensitizer, and a phase I study confirmed the feasibility of CCR with low-dose gemcitabine administered twice-weekly in NSCLC patients. Consequently, we designed a prospective, multicentric, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of this approach, following induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine. We included patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, no pleural effusion, adequate pulmonary, renal, liver and hematological functions, Karnofsky index >70 and planned treated volume (PTV) <2200cm3. Treatment consisted of 3 cycles of cisplatin (100mg/m2, d1) and gemcitabine (1250mg/m2, d1 and 8) q3w, followed by CCR (gemcitabine 50mg/m2 on Mondays and Thursdays and radiotherapy 68.4Gy, 1.8Gyqd). After the inclusion of 22 patients (group A), an unacceptable toxicity was detected. Thus, cisplatin dose was reduced to 70mg/m2, and gemcitabine dose was adjusted to 35mg/m2 during CCR. Another 34 patients (33 eligible, group B) were included. Five patients in group A and 6 patients in group B discontinued the study treatment during induction. Thus, 17 and 27 patients, respectively initiated CCR. Hematological toxicity (grades III and IV) was particularly relevant in group A during this phase, with 35 and 23% of thrombopenia and neutropenia, respectively. Nonhematological grades III-IV toxicity of chemoradiation was significant and similar in groups A and B: esophagitis 35.2 and 33.3% and pneumonitis 23.5 and 25.9%, respectively. 40.9% of patients in group A vs. 57.5% in group B completed treatment. Overall response (intention-to-treat analysis) was 68.1% in group A and 63.5% in group B. Median survival was 17.7 months for the whole group with a mean follow-up of 41.2 months. 20% of patients were alive at 3 years. Long-term results of this schedule are encouraging. However, nonhematological toxicity of chemoradiation is substantial and different strategies should be tested to minimize it.     

新辅助化疗在宫颈癌治疗中的临床研究

目的探讨宫颈癌新辅助化疗的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2001年1月-2005年11月采用新辅助化疗(NACT)+手术+放疗的44例ⅠB2期~ⅡB期宫颈癌患者的临床资料（治疗组）,并选择同期52例ⅠB2期~ⅡB期行手术+放疗的患者（对照组）做对比研究。结果44例行NACT患者中,CR 6例(13.64%),PR 21例(47.73%);SD 13例(29.55%),PD 4例(9.09%),总有效率为61.36%(27/44);不良反应主要为骨髓抑制、胃肠道毒性、脱发等,均可耐受,未影响手术治疗。96例术后全部作病理检查,治疗组2例(4.55%)切缘阳性,7例(15.91%)盆腔淋巴结阳性;对照组14例(26.92%)切缘阳性,20例(38.46%)盆腔淋巴结阳性,两项指标两组率的比较差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。全部96例患者均获得随访,治疗组44例患者中,41例(93.18%)存活3年,38例(86.36%)存活5年;对照组52例患者,45例(86.54%)存活3年,35例(67.31%)存活5年,两组5年生存率差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论术前新辅助化疗可提高ⅠB2期~ⅡB期宫颈癌的近期疗效,为根治性手术创造条件,且NACT+手术+放疗可提高患者5年生存率。     

Radiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for ascending?type nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective comparison of toxicity and prognosis

Background: In the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in treating ascending-type nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is under-evaluated. This study was to compare the efficacy of NACT followed by IMRT (NACT + RT) with the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) on ascending-type NPC.Methods: Clinical data of 214 patients with ascending-type NPC treated with NACT + RT or CCRT between December 2009 and July 2011 were analyzed. Of the 214 patients, 98 were treated with NACT followed by IMRT, and 116 were treated with CCRT. The survival rates were assessed using Kaplan –Meier analysis, and the survival curves were compared using a log-rank test.Results: The 4-year overall survival, locoregional failure-free survival, distant failure-free survival, and failure-free survivalrates were not significantly different between the two groups (all P > 0.05). However, patients in the CCRT group exhibited more severe acute adverse events than did patients in the NACT + RT group during radiotherapy, including leukopenia (30.2% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.016), neutropenia (25.9% vs. 11.2%, P = 0.011), and mucositis (57.8% vs. 40.8%, P = 0.028). After radiotherapy, patients in the CCRT group exhibited significantly higher rates of xerostomia (21.6% vs.10.2%, P = 0.041) and hearing loss (17.2% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.023).Conclusions: The treatment outcomes of the NACT + RT and CCRT groups were similar; however, CCRT led to higher rates of acute and late toxicities. NACT + RT may therefore be a better treatment strategy for ascending-type NPC.