欢迎访问《现代生物医学进展》编辑部！

目的：运用药物疗效及经济学方法研究CS 辅助化疗与ECF 化疗方案，进行成本效果对比分析，为临床合理选用胃癌化疗方案提供参考。方法：选择67 例中晚期胃癌患者，随机分为A 组（CS，32 例）组和B 组（ECF 组，35 例），A 组给予CS 方案辅助化疗，B 组给予ECF 方案化疗，3 个周期为l 疗程，均治疗3 个疗程后评价治疗效果及副作用，进行成本效果分析。结果：A 组与B 组治疗效果比较差异无显著性差异（P＞0.05），A 组治疗的有较低的相关死亡率，但与B 组比较差异无统计学意义（3.13% vs8.57%， P＞0.05），A 组Ⅲ/Ⅳ度中性粒细胞降低（12.56% vs 37.14%）、Ⅲ/Ⅳ度粒细胞减少性发热（3.13% vs 20.0%）、Ⅲ/Ⅳ度口腔粘膜炎（3.13% vs 22.90%）、肾毒性（15.6% vs 37.10%）、严重低钾血症（6.30% vs 40.0%）的发生率均低于B 组（P＜0.05）。A 组成本较高，并且由于成本增加，有较高的成本效益比。结论：CS 方案虽然有较好安全性，但因成本增加，有较高的成本效益比，患者应根据经济能力选择合适的治疗方案。

英文摘要:

Objective: To analyze the cost and ettectiveness of two chemotherapy schemas on advanced gastric carcinoma. Methods: 67 cases with advanced gastric carcinoma are randomized into two groups: group A(CS group,32 cases) and group B(ECF group,35 cases), while the group A take CS chemotherapy schema for 3 courses of treatment. The group B take ECF chemotherapy schema for 3 courses of treatment. Analyze the treatment effectiveness, side effect and cost ettectiveness. Results: The treatment effec- tiveness of two chemotherapy schemas has no difference（P＞0.05）. Group A has lower correlated death rate than group B, but the difference has no statistically significance （P＞0.05）. The cases in group A have lower rate than group B in Ⅲ/Ⅳ grate neutrophilic granulocyte decline （12.56% vs 37.14%）, febrile（3.13% vs 20.0%）,Ⅲ/Ⅳgrate oral mucositis（3.13% vs 22.90%）, renal toxicity（15.6% vs 37.10%）, severe hypokalemia （6.30% vs 40.0%）（P＜0.05）; Group A has higher cost and cost ettectiveness than group B. Conclusion: CS chemotherapy schema has better safe reliability, higher cost and cost ettectiveness than group B. The patient should choose suitable chemotherapy schemas depending on economic ability.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader