| 许英艺,许丽贞,卢 伟,林智才,邱国钦.对比分析FLOT方案与FOLFOX方案治疗中晚期胃癌的近远期疗效及对血清肿瘤标志物和NRP-2的影响[J].,2024,(16):3108-3112 |
| 对比分析FLOT方案与FOLFOX方案治疗中晚期胃癌的近远期疗效及对血清肿瘤标志物和NRP-2的影响 |
| Comparative Analysis of the Short-term and Long-term Efficacy of FLOT and FOLFOX in the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer and Their Impact on Serum Tumor Markers and NRP-2 |
| 投稿时间：2024-01-26 修订日期：2024-02-23 |
| DOI：10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2024.16.021 |
| 中文关键词: 中晚期胃癌 FLOT方案 FOLFOX方案 近远期疗效 血清肿瘤标志物 NRP-2 |
| 英文关键词: Middle to late stage gastric cancer FLOT FOLFOX Short - and long-term therapeutic effects Serum tumor markers NRP-2 |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目（8190021366）；福建省厦门市医疗卫生指导性项目（3502Z20209164） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 138 |
| 全文下载次数: 75 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘要 目的：对比研究FLOT方案与FOLFOX方案治疗中晚期胃癌（GC）的近远期疗效及对血清肿瘤标志物和NRP-2的影响。方法：选入我院2020年3月~2022年2月收治的82例中晚期GC患者，根据化疗方法不同分为FLOT组和FOLFOX组，各41例。比较两组的近远期疗效、血清肿瘤标志物和NRP-2水平；随访至2023年11月，记录两组患者生存状态并绘制Kaplan-Meier生存曲线。结果：FLOT组客观有效率显著高于FOLFOX组（85.37% vs. 65.85%，P＜0.05）。FLOT组治疗后血清癌胚抗原[（12.77±1.85）ng/mL vs. （20.69±2.58）ng/mL]、糖类抗原19-9[（20.46±5.20）U/mL vs. （29.41±8.04）U/mL]、糖类抗原125[（14.90±5.61）U/mL vs. （20.72±6.23）ng/mL]和NRP-2[（13.01±2.11）ng/mL vs. （15.23±2.25）ng/mL]水平均显著低于FOLFOX组，PFS[12.900（95%CI: 12.183~13.617）个月 vs. 9.600（95%CI: 8.471~10.729）个月 ]和OS [28.103（95%CI: 25.209~30.996）个月 vs. 20.799（95%CI: 18.482~23.115）个月]显著长于FOLFOX组（P＜0.05）。两组疾病控制率和毒副反应发生率无显著差异（P＞0.05）。结论：FLOT方案和FOLFOX方案均是中晚期GC的有效化疗方案，安全性一致，但前者在提高客观有效率、降低血清肿瘤标志物和NRP-2水平、延长生存期方面更具优势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the short-term and long-term efficacy of FLOT and FOLFOX in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC), as well as their effects on serum tumor markers and NRP-2. Methods: 82 patients with advanced gastric cancer admitted to our hospital from March 2020 to February 2022 were selected and divided into FLOT group and FOLFOX group based on different chemotherapy methods, with 41 cases in each group. Compare the short-term and long-term efficacy, serum tumor markers and NRP-2 levels between two groups. Follow up until November 2023, record the survival status of two groups of patients and draw Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: The objective effective rate of FLOT group was higher than FOLFOX group (85.37% vs. 65.85%, P<0.05). The levels of serum carcinoembryonic antigen [(12.77±1.85) ng/mL vs. (20.69±2.58) ng/mL], carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [(20.46±5.20) U/mL vs. (29.41±8.04) U/mL], carbohydrate antigen 125 [(14.90±5.61) U/mL vs. (20.72±6.23) ng/mL], and NRP-2 [(13.01±2.11) ng/mL vs. (15.23±2.25) ng/mL] in the FLOT group were lower than the FOLFOX group after treatment, PFS [12.900(95% CI: 12.183~13.617) months vs. 9.600 (95% CI: 8.471~10.729) months] and OS [28.103 (95% CI: 25.209~30.996) months vs. 20.799 (95% CI: 18.482~23.115) months] were longer than the FOLFOX group (P<0.05). There was no difference in disease control rate and incidence of toxic side effects between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: FLOT and FOLFOX are both effective chemotherapy regimens for mid to late stage GC, with consistent safety. However, the former has advantages in improving objective efficacy, reducing serum tumor markers and NRP-2 levels, and prolonging survival. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
