奥沙利铂持续腹腔热灌注治疗癌性腹水的临床研究

目的研究奥沙利铂(L-OHP)持续腹腔热灌注治疗癌性腹水的疗效和毒副作用。方法将76例癌性腹水患者随机分为三组:奥沙利铂持续腹腔热灌注化疗组(热化组)26例,引出腹水后,在加热的5%葡萄糖溶液2500～3500ml中加入L-OHP200mg/m2,持续体外循环腹腔热灌注,腹腔内温度保持在41～43℃,持续60min;腹腔内注射奥沙利铂化疗组(单化组)26例,常规腹腔穿刺引流腹水后注射L-OHP200mg/m2。单纯腹腔热灌注组(单热组)24例,加热5%葡萄糖溶液2500～3500ml,持续热灌注60min。结果总有效率(CR PR)54%(41/76)。热化组、单化组和单热组的有效率分别为76.9%(20/26)、50.0%(13/26)、33.3%(8/24),P<0.05。急性腹痛:热化组53.8%(14/26),单热组16.7%(4/24)。单化组无急性腹痛病例,P<0.05。麻痹性肠梗阻:热化组19.2%(5/26),单化组7.7%(2/26),单热组16.7%(4/24),P>0.05。结论奥沙利铂持续腹腔热灌注治疗恶性腹水是一种新的有效的治疗方法,毒副作用不大。     

Immediate changes in subcellular structures of transplanted tumors following photodynamic and laser hyperthermic therapy

Background and Objective: To further understand the precise process of the tumor cell degeneration after photodynamic therapy (PDT), laser hyperthermic therapy (LH), and combined treatments using an Nd:YAG laser. It is important to examine initial morphological alteration of tumor cells after these treatments. Study Design/Materials and Methods: In this study, nude mice bearing HeLa cell tumors were treated with PDT, LH, and combined treatments of the two. Tumor tissues obtained immediately after these treatments were analyzed using electron microscopy and morphometry. Results: In the combined treatments, which produced more severe effects on tumor cells, morphological features of apoptosis such as cytoplasmic condensation, blebs, and apoptotic bodies appeared in the cells, although the typical alteration in the nuclear chromatin was not seen. Conclusion: Cytoplasmic alterations may proceed more rapidly than nuclear alterations in the cellular degeneration induced by the single or combined treatments of PDT and LH.     

腹腔灌注联合射频透热治疗28例晚期卵巢癌

[目的]探讨晚期卵巢癌腹腔转移的治疗方法。[方法]以顺铂 卡铂 依托泊甙为主的联合方案行腹腔持续热灌注化疗并腹腔射频透热治疗28例晚期卵巢上皮癌，观察其疗效及毒副反应。[结果]完全缓解(CR)5例，部分缓解(PR)16例，稳定（NC）5例，进展（PD）2例，总有效率75.0%。主要毒副反应为骨髓抑制。[结论]双铂联合依托泊甙腹腔热灌注并射频透热治疗对中晚期卵巢癌疗效较好，毒副反应少。     

地佐辛联合右美托咪定降低肠道术后腹腔热灌注化疗不良反应的研究

目的 对地佐辛联合右美托咪定在降低肠道术后腹腔热灌注化疗（HIPEC）不良反应中的作用进行研究分析，为临床应用提供参考。方法 80例肠道肿瘤术后接受HIPEC患者，根据不同的镇静镇痛治疗方法分为干预组及常规组，干预组患者在常规镇静镇痛的基础上，HIPEC前10 min给予患者地佐辛5 mg肌内注射、生理盐水48 mL+右美托咪定200 μg以0.3 μg/（kg·h）持续泵入直至HIPEC结束，比较2组患者在HIPEC中不良反应发生的情况。结果2组进行对比发现，干预组患者在HIPEC过程中的心率［（83.34±8.25）次/min vs.（90.11±10.69）次/min］、体温［（37.33±0.42）℃ vs（. 37.95±0.51）℃］均较常规组降低，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）；同时干预组的恶心呕吐、疼痛、烦躁等不良反应发生率均低于常规组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 地佐辛联合右美托咪定用于肠道术后腹腔热灌注化疗能明显降低患者不良反应的发生。     

经球囊导管肝段热凝固CT与病理对照研究

目的观察经球囊导管阻断肝动脉高热灌注生理盐水行肝段热凝固CT表现。方法实验猪6头,选用球囊导管阻断肝段动脉血流进行热灌注,导管流出温度设置50~60℃之间。热灌注结束后即刻、14天,行肝动脉DSA检查和肝脏螺旋CT扫描,14天将实验猪全部处死,取出肝脏进行病理检查。结果热灌注后14天,6头实验猪均存活。DSA检查见靶段动脉闭塞,肝组织热灌注区显示充盈缺损。肝脏热灌注区CT影像学表现:热灌注结束后即刻,热灌注区显示大片状低密度改变,无明显强化,边缘显示模糊;热灌注后14天,CT平扫示肝脏热灌注区呈典型楔形低密度改变;CT增强示热灌注区显示"三环征",由内向外分为低密度无增强区、边缘强化带和移行区透明带。病理上取得6个热凝固灶,CT上低密度无增强区、边缘强化带和移行区透明带分别代表病理的凝固性坏死区、炎性充血带和纤维化带。结论增强CT能准确反映经动脉导管肝段介入性热毁损的病理改变,DSA价值有限。     

胸腔热灌注治疗中应用右美托咪定复合地佐辛的临床观察

目的观察胸腔热灌注治疗中应用右美托咪定复合地佐辛的临床效果。方法以2013年1月至10月本院收治的全麻下行胸腔热灌注治疗的患者40例为研究对象,按随机数字表分为右美托咪定＋芬太尼组（A组）和右美托咪定＋地佐辛组（B组）,分别于术前10min给予芬太尼1．0μg/kg、地佐辛0．1mg／kg,术中均静脉持续泵注右美托咪定。记录两组患者治疗开始后5min（T1）、15min（T2）、30min（T3）、60min（T4）4个时点的视觉模拟评分（VAS）及T3、T4时点的Ramsay镇静评分,记录术中不良反应的发生情况。结果术中各时点两组患者的VAS评分差异无统计学意义（均P〉0．05）。T3、T4时点,B组患者的镇静评分明显高于A组（2．45±0．61比1．50±0．55,2．78±0．75比2．45±0．92,均P〈0．05）。与A组比较,B组患者不良反应发生较少。结论右美托咪定复合地佐辛用于胸腔热灌注治疗术中镇静镇痛,效果确切,不良反应较少。     

Suitability of the AUC Ratio as an Indicator of the Pharmacokinetic Advantage in HIPEC

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) ratio as an optimal indicator of the pharmacokinetic advantage during hyperthermic intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy. The impact on the AUC ratio on the variables related to the calculation of systemic drug exposure, instillation time, and peripheral drug distribution was evaluated through simulations as well as through a retrospective analysis of studies published in the literature. Both model simulations and the retrospective analysis showed that the 3 variables evaluated had an impact on the AUC ratio value if the complete systemic exposure was not fully considered. However, when that complete systemic exposure was considered, none of these variables affected the AUC ratio value. AUC ratio is not a characteristic parameter of a drug if the calculated systemic drug exposure is not complete. Thus, AUC ratio is not valid for comparing the pharmacokinetic advantage of 2 drugs, and it should not be employed to prove whether a drug can be used in hyperthermic intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy safely with regard to toxicity. As an alternative, the study of the absorption rate constant and the bioavailability are proposed as the true and independent parameters that reflect the amount of drug absorbed.     

两种腹腔热灌注化疗方式的对比研究

目的通过对两种腹腔热灌注治疗（CHPPC）所产生的不良反应的对比研究,观察哪种热灌注方式更有利于腹腔热灌注化疗的实施及疗效的发挥。方法通过对两组胃癌T4期患者采用不同热灌注间隔时间进行治疗,观察胃肠道反应、腹痛、电解质紊乱、骨髓抑制四项不良反应发生率及患者可耐受400ml／min流量的灌注次数进行统计学比较,了解两种热灌注方式的优劣。结果两种治疗方案不良反应发生率无统计学意义,但间隔24h组患者可耐受400ml／min灌注流量次数,较间隔48h组多且具有统计学意义。结论术后早期热灌注治疗间隔24h进行,在不增加不良反应前提下,增加了有效灌注次数,对于有效的发挥腹腔热灌注的疗效具有优势。