高级搜索
CHOP联合口服VP-16方案与CHOP方案治疗具有不良预后因素的非霍奇金淋巴瘤临床比较[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2004, 31(09): 576-578. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2582
引用本文: CHOP联合口服VP-16方案与CHOP方案治疗具有不良预后因素的非霍奇金淋巴瘤临床比较[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2004, 31(09): 576-578. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2582
Clinical Comparison of CHOP Plus Oral VP-16 Regimen and CHOP Regimen for Adverse Prognostic Factor Non-Hodgkin s Lymphoma[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2004, 31(09): 576-578. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2582
Citation: Clinical Comparison of CHOP Plus Oral VP-16 Regimen and CHOP Regimen for Adverse Prognostic Factor Non-Hodgkin s Lymphoma[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2004, 31(09): 576-578. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2582

CHOP联合口服VP-16方案与CHOP方案治疗具有不良预后因素的非霍奇金淋巴瘤临床比较

Clinical Comparison of CHOP Plus Oral VP-16 Regimen and CHOP Regimen for Adverse Prognostic Factor Non-Hodgkin s Lymphoma

  • 摘要: 目的 比较CHOP联合口服VP 16方案和CHOP标准方案治疗具有不良预后因素的中、高度恶性非霍奇金淋巴瘤 (NHL)的临床疗效和毒性。方法 选择NHL国际预后指数 (IPI)为高中度、高度危险组的中、高度恶性NHL 72例, 随机分为强化方案及标准方案两组, 分别采用上述两方案治疗。结果 两组CR率分别为 6 7.6 % (2 5 / 37)和 4 5 .7% (16 / 35 ), 无显著差异 (P >0 .0 5 ), 但强化方案组二年生存率和二年无病生存率分别为 5 9.5 % (2 2 / 37)和 4 3.2 % (16 / 37), 明显优于标准方案组的 34.3% (12 / 35 )、2 0 .0 % (7/ 35 ), 差异显著 (P <0 .0 5 )。毒副反应方面, 强化方案组WBC降低发生率高于标准方案组(χ2 =4 .6 7,P <0 .0 5 ), 其中Ⅲ~Ⅳ度WBC降低及PLT降低均明显高于标准方案组 (P <0 .0 1), 因WBC降低发热亦明显多见 (χ2 =4 .6 6, P <0 .0 5 )。两组给药的相对剂量强度分别为 93.7%和 96 .6 %。结论 强化方案...

     

    Abstract: Objective Comparison the clinical results of CHOP plus oral VP-16 regimen and standard CHOP regimen for the treatment of intermediate or high grade Non-Hodgkin s lymphoma(NHL) with adverse prognostic factor. Methods 72 cases of pathologically proved intermediate or high grade NHL patients in international prognostic index (IPI) high-intermediate risk and high risk groups were enrolled and randomly treated with CHOP regimen plus oral VP-16 capsule(intensive regimen group)or CHOP regimen(Standard reg...

     

/

返回文章
返回