ET与CEF新辅助化疗方案的临床疗效比较

目的比较ET与CEF两种不同新辅助化疗方案治疗乳腺癌的疗效及不良反应。方法收集130例Ⅱa-Ⅲc期乳腺癌患者，分为两组，分别接受ET组（多西紫杉醇加表阿霉素）和CEF组（环磷酰胺加表阿霉素加5-Fu）化疗方案治疗。其中ET组64例，CEF组66例，化疗21天为1个周期。所有的患者均完成2—4个周期新辅助化疗后评价疗效。结果乳腺癌新辅助化疗总有效率（ORR）ET组为85．9％（57／64），CEF组为71．2％（47／66）。主要不良反应是脱发、乏力、恶心、呕吐、腹泻，两组间不良反应无显著性差异。ET组3度以上粒细胞缺乏、粒细胞缺乏性发热、外周性水肿、关节痛、肌痛、神经感觉异常发生率较CEF组高（P〈0．05），但不良反应均可耐受。结论两组新辅助化疗方案对乳腺癌的原发肿瘤均有效。ET组的疗效及不良反应均高于CEF组。

Clinical evaluation of ET and CEF regimens for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer

Objective To compare the efficacy and side effects of ET epirubicin （EPI） plus docetaxel ] and CEF cyclophosphamide （CTX）, epirubicin （EPI）, plus 5-fluorouracil （5-FU） ] as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer. Methods One hundred and thirty patients with stage Ⅱa-Ⅲc breast cancers were randomly divided into two groups to receive ET or CEF regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Clinical responses were assessed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy 2-4 cycles. Results The overall response rate （ORR）was 85.9%（57/64） in ET and 71.2%（47/66） in CEF respectively.There was significant difference between the two groups（P〈0.05）. The side effects,including alopecia, asthenia, nausea,vomiting,diarrhea,were similar in the two groups. In the morbidity of more than degree 3 neutropenia, agranulocytic fever, peripheral edema, arthralgia, myalgia, neurosensory abnormality, the ET group was higber than that CEF group. Conclusions The two different regimens are all effective in the treatment of breast cancer. In the therapeutic efficacy and side effects, the ET regiMen is higher than that CEF group.