论文部分内容阅读
目的比较FAM、UFTM、FEP和LFP／M四种化疗方案治疗晚期胃癌的效果。方法应用回顾性分析，总结出每个方案的近期和远期疗效，作出统计学处理。结果近期疗效：四种方案的有效率分别为FAM34．4％，UFTM32．6％，FEP47．0％和LFP／M44．0％。经统计学处理各组间P值均大于0．05，无显著差异。远期疗效：有效病例治后中位缓解期和生存期分别为FAM5月和11．5月，UFTM4．5月和8．5月，FEP5月和10月，LEP／M4月和9月，毒副反应在骨髓抑制方面以FAM和LFP／M为重，UFTM最轻。消化道反应以FEP和LFP／M为重，UFTM最轻．结论四种方案治疗晚期胃癌，近期疗效各组间无显著差异。但以FEP和LFP／M方案的有效率更高一些，仍可作为首选方案。UFTM方案的不良反应最轻，适用于全身状况较差，体质较弱的患者。FAM方案的生存期较长，副反应也不大，对心脏无病变的患者仍不失为较好的治疗方案。
Objective To compare the efficacy of four chemotherapy regimens of FAM, UFTM, FEP and LFP/M in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Methods A retrospective analysis was used to summarize the short-term and long-term efficacy of each regimen and statistical analysis was performed. Results Short-term efficacy: The effectiveness of the four regimens was FAM 34.4%, UFTM 32.6%, FEP 47.0%, and LFP/M 44.0%, respectively. The P value of each group was statistically greater than 0.05, and there was no significant difference. Long-term efficacy: The median remission period and survival period after effective treatment were FAM May and 11.5 months, UFTM 4.5 months and 8.5 months, FEP May and October, LEP/M4 months and September, respectively. The side effects were heavier in terms of myelosuppression with FAM and LFP/M, with UFTM being the lightest. Gastrointestinal reactions are heavier than FEP and LFP/M. UFTM is the lightest. Conclusion There are no significant differences in the short-term efficacy of the four regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. However, with the higher efficiency of the FEP and LFP/M programs, it can still be the preferred option. The UFTM program has the least adverse reactions and is suitable for patients with poor general condition and weak constitution. The long-term survival of the FAM program is not serious, and it is still a good treatment option for patients with heart disease.