IP方案与TP方案二线治疗小细胞肺癌的临床观察  

Clinical Study of IP and TP as Second-line Treatment for SCLC

作　　者：孙永臣[1] 刘军[1] 杨曦[1] 韩文杰[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南省商丘市第一人民医院肿瘤科,河南商丘476100

出　　处：《中国医药指南》2015年第9期13-14,共2页Guide of China Medicine

摘　　要：目的本研究为比较伊立替康联合顺铂(irinotecan plus cisplatin,IP)方案与紫杉醇联合顺铂(paclitaxel plus cisplatin,TP)方案二线治疗小细胞肺癌(SCLC)的近期疗效、无进展生存期及不良反应。方法分析70例SCLC患者,随机分为两组,分别接受IP和TP方案的主治疗。要研究终点为无进展生存期(progression-free survival,PFS),客观反应率(response rate,RR)和不良反应。结果 IP组RR68.6%,中位PFS为6.5个月;TP组RR 60.0%,中位PFS为4.6个月,两组PFS比较有统计学差异(P<0.05)。两组主要不良反应均为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应,但骨髓抑制无统计学差异(P>0.05),IP组腹泻发生率高于TP组,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 IP方案二线治疗SCLC客观疗效与TP方案相当,但PFS优于TP组,不良反应可耐受。Objective To compare the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan plus etoposide（IP） with those of paclitaxel plus cisplatin（TP） as second-line treatments for small cell lung cancer（SCLC）. Methods A total of 70 patients were randomly assigned into the IP arm and the TP arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival（PFS）, response rate, and toxicity. Results The median PFS was 6.5 months in the IP arm and 4.6 months in the TP arm. Significant difference was observed（P〈0.05）. The response rate was 68.6% in the IP arm and 60.0% in the TP arm. No significant difference in response rate was observed between the two arms（P〉0.05）. The main common adverse reactions were myelosuppression and gastrointestinal response in both treatment arms. No significant difference in myelosuppression toxicity was observed between the arms（P〉0.05）. Diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the IP arm than in the TP arm（P〈0.05）. Conclusion The control rate of IP and TP as second-line therapy for SCLC are equivalent. Progression free survival was higher in the IP arm than TP arm, and adverse reactions can be tolerated.

关 键 词：伊立替康 紫杉醇 小细胞肺癌 化疗 

分 类 号：R734.2[医药卫生—肿瘤]