不同紫杉醇剂型联合卡铂治疗卵巢癌的疗效研究

目的 观察卵巢癌（OC）患者中应用不同紫杉醇剂型联合卡铂的临床疗效。方法 收集我院2014年10月~2016年10月收治的70例OC患者的临床资料，随机分为甲组（38例）和乙组（32例），甲组患者采用注射用紫杉醇脂质体+卡铂治疗，乙组患者采用紫杉醇注射液+卡铂治疗，比较两组近期疗效、远期疗效、副作用、医疗费用。结果 甲组、乙组治疗总有效率分别为68.42%、65.63%，疾病控制率分别为81.58%、78.13%，差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；甲组无进展生存期大于乙组（15.79±3.02）个月 vs （13.42±2.13）个月]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组总生存期比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；甲组副作用发生率为10.53%，低于乙组的31.25%，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；甲组医疗费用高于乙组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 OC治疗中紫杉醇脂质体联合卡铂与紫杉醇注射液联合卡铂近期疗效相当，前者可延长患者无进展生存期，且安全性更高，但医疗费用较高。

Therapeutic Effect of Different Paclitaxel Dosage Forms Combined With Carboplatin On Ovarian Cancer

Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of different paclitaxel dosage forms combined with carboplatin in patients with ovarian cancer (OC). Methods The clinical data of 70 patients with OC admitted to our hospital from October 2014 to October 2016 were randomly divided into group A (38 cases) and group B (32 cases). Group A patients received paclitaxel liposome for injection. + Carboplatin treatment, group B patients were treated with paclitaxel injection + carboplatin, comparing the short-term efficacy, long-term efficacy, side effects, medical expenses of the two groups. ResultsThe total effective rate of treatment in group A and group B was 68.42% and 65.63%, respectively. The disease control rate was 81.58% and 78.13%, respectively,the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The progression-free survival of group A was greater than that of group B(15.79±3.02) months vs (13.42±2.13) months], the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups (P>0.05); side effects of group A the incidence was 10.53%, which was lower than that of group B,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The medical expenses of group A were higher than those of group B,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion In the OC treatment, paclitaxel liposome combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel injection combined with carboplatin has the short-term effect. The former can prolong the progression-free survival of patients, and the safety is higher, but the medical expenses are higher.