检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]安康市旬阳县金寨镇卫生院 [2]旬阳县蜀河镇卫生院人口和计划生育服务站 [3]安康市石泉县中医院 [4]安康市中心医院,陕西安康725000
出 处:《牡丹江医学院学报》2014年第1期7-9,共3页Journal of Mudanjiang Medical University
摘 要:目的:观察ELP方案与FAM方案治疗胃癌的临床疗效。方法:将300例胃癌患者,随机分为两组,治疗组150例,用ELP方案进行化疗。对照组150例,用FAM方案进行化疗。两组均给予对症,支持等治疗,总疗程为半年,观察疗效,起效时间及不良反应。结果:治疗组的总有效率为(75%)高于对照组(61%)(P<0.01),治疗组起效时间明显缩短(P<0.05),化疗后治疗组的症状改善率为80%,对照组为57%。两组均有恶心,呕吐,脱发,白细胞减少,肝肾功能损害等不良反应,治疗组发生率为46%,对照组为55%。结论:ELP方案治疗胃癌有效率高于FAM方案,不良反应低于FAM方案,值得临床治疗应用。Objective:Observe the clinical curative effect of gastric cancer treatment with. ELP plan and FAM scheme Methods: 300 cases of gastric cancer patients were randomly divided into two groups. The treatment group 150 examples were doctoved with the ELP scheme of chemotherapy and 150 patients in control with FAM scheme of chemotherapy. Both groups were given symptomatic and support treatment, the total period of which was half a year in orderto observe curative effect, work time and adverse reaction. Results: The total effective rate of the treatment group(75% ) was higher than that in the control group (61%) (P 〈0. O1 ), the treatment group work time significantly shortened(P 〈 O. 05). After chemotherapy treatment group had the impravement nate for 80% and the placebo group 57%. Both groups have nausea, vomiting, loss of hair, leukopenia, liver and kidney function adverse reactions as dam- age, the treatment group was 46%, and in the placebo group 55%. Conclusion: efficieny of ELPscheme treatment on stomach FAM higher than scheme and its adverse reaction FAM acheme, and ,the clinical application.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.186