乳腺癌不同周期新辅助化疗的疗效观察

目的比较两组不同周期的新辅助化疗对乳腺癌疗效的影响及毒性反应。方法26例局部进展期乳腺癌患者接受CEF方案(CTX+Epi+5-Fu)方案进行新辅助化疗。其中有15例完成2个周期治疗,11例完成4个周期治疗,对两组的疗效进行比较分析。结果2周期组的总有效率为86·7%(13/15),其中临床完全缓解(cCR)1例,部分缓解(PR)12例,无变化(NC)2例。4周期组的总有效率90·9%(10/11),cCR1例,PR9例,NC1例。2周期组有7例(46·6%)、4周期组为6例(54·5%)肿大淋巴结消失。两组间毒性反应比较,在血液系统、消化道系统以及脱发等方面,4周期治疗组重于2周期组。结论CEF方案对局部进展期乳腺癌进行新辅助化疗,在肿瘤及淋巴结缩小(降期)效果方面,4周期组与2周期组无显著性差异。但在毒副反应方面,血液毒性及消化系统症状4周期治疗组稍重于2周期组。

THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY OF THE NEW NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY WITH DIFFERENT CYCLES FOR BREAST CANCER

Objective To compare the efficacy and toxicity of different cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Methods Twenty six patients with breast cancer were treated with CEF (cyclophosphamide epirubicin fluorouracil). Two cycles were used in 15 patients (2 cycles group) and 4 cycles were used in 11patients (4 cycles group) . Results The overall response rate (RR) was 86.7%(13/15) in 2 cycles group and 90.9%(10/11) in 4 cycles group. One patient got clinically complete response (CR), 12 cases had partial response (PR),2 with no change (NC) in 2 cycles group, while 1 patients showed CR, 9 with PR, and 1 with NC in 4 cycles group. Lymph nodes became nonpalpable in 46.6 % cases in 2 cycles group and in 54.5% cases in 4 cycles group. Toxicities including leukopenia, gastroenteric reactions were more common in 4 cycles group than 2 cycles group. Conclusion There were no obviously differences in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CEF regimen for 2 cycles and 4 cycles. But there were more toxicities in 4cycles group than 2 cycles group.