机构地区:[1]吉化总医院放疗科,吉林吉林132021 [2]吉化总医院康复科,吉林吉林132021
出 处:《中国医药导报》2015年第14期86-89,共4页China Medical Herald
摘 要:目的对比高聚金葡素、肿瘤坏死因子及联合应用顺铂治疗肺腺癌所致恶性胸腔积液的效果与不良反应。方法选取2011年4月~2014年6月就诊于吉化总医院肿瘤科的92例肺腺癌伴恶性胸腔积液患者。所有人组患者均行中心静脉置管引流术引尽胸腔积液,依据抽签方式随机分为肿瘤坏死因子+顺铂组(A组)、高聚金葡素+顺铂组(B组)、单用高聚金葡素组(c组)、单用肿瘤坏死因子组(D组)、单用顺铂组(E组)。每周用药1次,连续用药4周后,观察患者胸腔积液疗效、生活质量情况及不良反应(发热、胸痛、胃肠道反应、肝功能损害、肾功能损害、骨髓抑制)情况。结果胸腔积液治疗有效率:A组(x2=10.398,P=0.001)、B组(x2=7.944,P=0.005)、D组(x2=-3.989,P=0.046)明显高于c组;A组(x2=9.531,P=0.002)、B组(x2=7.131,P=0.008)明显高于E组。生活质量有效率:A组(x2=14.421,P=0.001)、B组(x2=8.307,P=0.004)、D组(x2=5.268,P=0.022)明显高于c组;A组(x2=10.700,P=0.001)、B组(x2=7.658,P=0.006)、D组(x2=4.705,P=0.030)明显高于E组。发热发生率:A组(x2=12.148,P〈0.01)、B组(x2=12.481,P〈0.01)、C组(x2=7.919,P=0.005)、D组(x2=10.920,P=0.001)明显高于E组。各组的胸痛、胃肠道反应、肝功能损害、肾功能损害、骨髓抑制发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。A组发热发生率明显高于胸痛、胃肠道反应、肝功能损害、肾功能损害、骨髓抑制,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。E组胸痛发生率明显高于肝功能损害,差异有统计学意义(x2=6.692,P=0.023)。结论高聚金葡素、肿瘤坏死因子联合顺铂可提高恶性胸腔积液的临床治疗有效率.不良反府轻日.可摔.Objective To compare clinical therapeutic effect and adverse reaction of highly agglutinative staphlococcin (HAS), tumor necorsis factor and combined with Cisplatin in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion caused by lung adenocarcinoma. Methods 92 patients with lung adenocarcinoma and malignant pleural effusion in Jihua Central Hospital of tumor department from April 2011 to June 2014 were selected. All the patients were treated with pleural effusion by central venous catheter and randomly divided into rmhTNF combined with Cisplatin (group A), HAS combined with Cisplatin (group B), HAS (group C), rmhTNF (group D) and Cisplatin (group E) according to lottery. All the patients were injected once a week, with four weeks of treatment. Therapeutic efficiency of pleural effusion, quality of life and adverse reaction (fever, chest pain, gastrointestinal reaction, liver damage, renal damage and marrow suppression) were observed. Results Effective rate of pleural effusion: group A (x2=10.398, P = 0.001), group B (X2=7.944, P = 0.005), group D (X2=3.989, P = 0.046) was significantly higher than that group C respectively; group A (X2=9.531, P = 0.002) and group B (X2=7.131, P = 0.008) was significantly higher than that group E respectively. Effective rate of life quality: group A (x2=14.421, P = 0.001), group B (x2=8.307, P = 0.004) and group D (XZ=5.268, P = 0.022) was signifi- cantly higher than that group C respectively; group A (X2=10.700, P = 0.001), group B (X2=7.658, P = 0.006) and group D (X2=4.705, P = 0.030) was significantly higher than that group E respectively. Incidence rate of fever: group A (X2=12.148, P 〈 0.01), group B (X2=12.481, P 〈 0.01), group C (X2=7.919, P = 0.005),goup D (x2=10.920, P = 0.001) wassignificantly higher than that group E respectively. Inci-dence rate of chest pain,gastrointestinal reaction, hepatic injury, renal injury and myelosuppression among five groups was compared, with no stat
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...