目的 :回顾性分析比较PF ,BMP ,ELFP三种方案治疗晚期食管癌的临床疗效和毒性。方法 :选择病理证实的晚期食管癌 71例 ,分成 3组 ,分别用上述 3种方法进行治疗。结果 :PF ,BMP ,ELFP有效率 (CR +PR)各为33% ,6 4% ,6 8.8% ;按病变部位分析 :ELFP对骨转移、原发灶、淋巴结转移、肺转移、肝转移有效率为 5 0 .0 %～10 0 .0 % ;BMP对骨转移、原发灶、肺转移、肝转移、淋巴结转移有效率为 5 0 .0 %～ 85 .7% ;PF对原发灶、淋巴结转移、肺转移有效率为 2 5 %～ 42 % ,对肝转移、骨转移无效 ;治疗后有效病例生存期为 4～ 6 7月 ,中位生存期分别为 5 ,6 ,9个月 ,1年以上生存率分别为 2 0 % ,16 % ,31.2 %。结论 :BMF ,ELFP两方案有效率相仿 ,较PF方案有效率高 ,但毒性偏大 ,应选择性应用 ,而PF方案适用于大多数晚期食管癌患者 Objective: To retrospectively analyze the clinical efficacy and toxicity of PF, BMP and ELFP in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer. Methods: Seventy-one patients with pathologically proven advanced esophageal cancer were divided into three groups and treated with the above three methods. Results: The PF, BMP and ELFP efficiency (CR + PR) were 33%, 64%, and 68.8% respectively. According to the lesion location analysis, ELFP had bone metastasis, primary tumor, lymph node metastasis, lung metastasis, liver metastasis. The efficiency was 50.0% to 100.0%; the effective rate of BMP on bone metastasis, primary tumor, lung metastasis, hepatic metastasis, and lymph node metastasis was 50.0% to 85.7%; PF on the primary tumor The effective rate of lymph node metastasis and lung metastasis was between 25% and 42%. It had no effect on liver metastasis and bone metastasis. The effective survival time of the disease was 4 to 6 July. The median survival time was 5, 6, and 9 months respectively. The survival rate over 1 year was 20%, 16%, and 31.2%, respectively. Conclusion : The efficacy of BMF and ELFP are similar, they are more effective than PF, but they are more toxic and should be used selectively. PF is suitable for most patients with advanced esophageal cancer.