高级搜索
塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的临床观察[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2014, 41(09): 1031-1035. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2014.09.016
引用本文: 塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的临床观察[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2014, 41(09): 1031-1035. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2014.09.016
Clinical Observation of Celecoxib Combined with Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin as a First-line Therapy for Advanced Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2014, 41(09): 1031-1035. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2014.09.016
Citation: Clinical Observation of Celecoxib Combined with Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin as a First-line Therapy for Advanced Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2014, 41(09): 1031-1035. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2014.09.016

塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的临床观察

Clinical Observation of Celecoxib Combined with Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin as a First-line Therapy for Advanced Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

  • 摘要: 目的 评价塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌的疗效及安全性。方法 将43例符合标准的晚期肺腺癌患者随机分为A、B两组。A组22例采用塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂治疗,21 天为1周期,口服塞来昔布直至疾病进展或出现严重不良反应;B组21例只采用培美曲塞和卡铂治疗,21天为1周期。每2周期评价疗效,每天监测不良反应。结果 A组和B组的缓解率(RR)分别为40.90% (9/22)和38.10%(8/21),疾病控制率(DCR)分别为86.37%(19/22)和85.72%(18/21),两者比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.863)。中位无疾病进展时间(mPFS)分别为6.97月和6.37月,中位总生存时间(mOS)分别为14.8月和11.3月,差异均无统计学意义(P= 0.294,P=0.436)。A组1年总生存率为B组的两倍,但差异仍无统计学意义(21.10% vs. 10.00%,P=0.339)。A组生活质量(QOL)的改善明显高于B组(77.27% vs. 42.86%,P=0.031),两组不良反应发生率相似(P>0.05)。结论 塞来昔布联合培美曲塞和卡铂一线治疗晚期肺腺癌未能提高疾病控制率,但能明显改善患者生活质量,不良反应发生率无增加,有一定临床应用价值,值得进一步研究。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of celecoxib(CXB) combined with pemetrexed(PEM) plus carboplatin(CBP) as a first-line therapy for advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Methods Forty-three eligible patients were randomly assigned into two groups. In Group A, 22 patients were treated with CXB combined with PEM plus CBP regimen; in Group B, 21 patients were treated with PEM plus CBP alone. PEM and CBP were repeated every 3 wk, whereas CXB was continued with no interruption until the progression of disease or serious adverse events occurred. The efficacy was evaluated every 2 cycles and adverse reactions were observed every day. Results There was no significant difference in the remission rate (RR) or disease control rate (DCR) between Group A and Group B (40.90% vs. 38.10%, 86.37% vs. 85.72%, P=0.863). The median progression free survival time(mPFS) and the median overall survival time (mOS) in Group A were higher than those in Group B(6.97 m vs. 6.37 m, 14.8 m vs. 11.3 m), but there was no statistically significant difference (P= 0.294, P=0.436). The one-year OS rate in Group A was two times higher than that in Group B, with no statistically significance unexpectedly(21.10% vs. 10.00%, P=0.339). Improved quality of life (QOL) in Group A was significantly higher than that in Group B(77.27% vs. 42.86%,P=0.031), while toxicity rates were similar (P>0.05). Conclusion Although CXB combined with PEM plus CBP as a first-line therapy for advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma couldn't improve the DCR, it could significantly improve the QOL without any increase of toxicity incidence. Therefore, the therapy is valuable to some degree in the clinical application and further study is needed.

     

/

返回文章
返回