机构地区:[1]新疆医科大学附属肿瘤医院药学部,新疆乌鲁木齐830000 [2]新疆医科大学附属肿瘤医院肺内二科,新疆乌鲁木齐830000
出 处:《中国临床药理学杂志》2022年第20期2396-2400,共5页The Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
摘 要:目的 观察阿帕替尼对耐铂型卵巢癌的短期临床疗效及安全性。方法 将38例耐铂型复发性卵巢癌患者分为对照组与试验组,每组19例。对照组患者采用单纯化疗方案,第1,8天给予吉西他滨1 000 mg·m^(-2),静脉滴注,第2天给予130 mg·m^(-2)奥沙利铂,静脉滴注,28 d为1个疗程,化疗2~6个疗程;试验组在对照组的基础上给予阿帕替尼500 mg,qd,po。用酶联免疫吸附法检测患者血清血管生长相关因子包括血管内皮生长因子受体(VEGFR)、血小板源性生长因子受体(PDGFR)、成纤维细胞生长因子受体(FGFR)及干细胞因子(SCF)水平,用电化学发光法和荧光标记法检测患者血清肿瘤标志物癌胚抗原(CEA)、碳水化合物抗原19-9(CA19-9)、碳水化合物抗原242(CA242)和碳水化合物抗原50(CA50)及外周血T细胞亚群分布情况。治疗结束后用实体肿瘤疗效评价标准1.1版(RECIST 1.1)对患者的疗效进行判定,统计治疗过程中患者出现药物不良反应情况。结果 治疗后,试验组和对照组患者血清VEGFR分别为(7.42±1.54)和(15.10±4.13)ng·mL^(-1);PDGFR分别为(26.55±3.94)和(37.42±6.59)ng·mL^(-1);FGFR分别为(10.98±1.39)和(20.23±4.75)ng·mL^(-1);SCF分别为(0.46±0.13)和(1.20±0.49)ng·mL^(-1),差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。试验组血清肿瘤标志物CEA、CA19-9、CA242和CA50水平均显著低于对照组(均P<0.05)。试验组患者治疗后外周血CD3^(+)、CD8^(+)及NK细胞比例均明显高于治疗前(均P<0.05)。试验组患者治疗总有效率和疾病控制率分别为63.15%,89.47%,明显高于对照组的36.84%,78.95%,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 阿帕替尼对耐铂型卵巢癌近期治疗效果显著,明显提高了患者的治疗总有效率和疾病控制率且治疗中患者的耐受良好。Objective To evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of apatinib in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Methods Thirty-eight patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer were divided into control group and treatment group, with 19 cases in each group. Patients in control group were treated with simple chemotherapy regimen: 1 000 mg·m^(-2)gemcitabineon days 1 and 8, intravenously, 130 mg·m^(-2)oxaliplatin on day 2, intravenously, 28 d a course, with 2-6 courses of chemotherapy. Patients in treatment group were added apatinib 500 mg, qd, po on the basis of control group. Patients’ serum levels of vascular growth-related factors vascular endothelial growth factor( VEGFR),platelet-derived growth factor receptors( PDGFR),fibroblast growth factor receptors( FGFR) and stem cell factor( SCF) were measured by enzyme-linked immunoassay,and their serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen( CEA),carbohydrate antigen 19-9( CA19-9),carbohydrate antigen 242( CA242) and carbohydrate antigen 50( CA50) and the distribution of peripheral blood T-cell subsets were detected by electrochemiluminescence and fluorescent labeling methods. The efficacy of the patients was determined by solid tumor efficacy evaluation criteria( RECIST 1. 1) after the treatment and the patients’ adverse reactions during the treatment were counted. Results After treatment,the serum VEGFR in treatment group and control group were( 7. 42 ± 1. 54) and( 15. 10 ± 4. 13) ng·mL^(-1);PDGFR were( 26. 55 ± 3. 94) and( 37. 42 ± 6. 59) ng·mL^(-1);FGFR were( 10. 98 ± 1. 39) and( 20. 23 ± 4. 75) ng · m L;SCF were( 0. 46 ± 0. 13) and( 1. 20 ± 0. 49)ng·mL^(-1);the differences were all statistically significant( all P < 0. 05). The levels of serum tumor markers CEA,CA19-9,CA242 and CA50 in the treatment group were lower than those of in control group( all P < 0. 05). The proportions of peripheral blood CD3^(+),CD8^(+)and NK cells were significantly higher in patients in treatment group after treatment than before treatment( P < 0.
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...