论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨不同化疗方案治疗乳腺癌的近期疗效及不良反应。方法 2013年5月至2013年5月间收治的女性Ⅱ~Ⅲ期乳腺癌患者88例,随机分为对照组和观察组,每组44例。对照组患者采用CEF(环磷酰胺+表阿霉素+氟尿嘧啶)方案,观察组患者采用ET(表阿霉素+紫杉醇)方案,比较两组患者的疗效和不良反应。结果治疗后,观察组患者总有效率(90.9%)明显高于对照组总有效率(70.5%),两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者均未出现肝功能损伤及心肌损伤,而恶心呕吐、脱发等不良反应发生率则为100%。观察组患者中有24例出现骨髓抑制,对照组患者中有14例出现骨髓抑制,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在乳腺癌患者的新辅助化疗中,ET化疗方案优于CEF方案,但ET方案引起的不良反应较严重,临床应用时需酌情用量且密切监测患者不良反应发生情况,及时给予适当的缓解治疗。
Objective To investigate the short-term effects and adverse reactions of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of breast cancer. Methods 88 women with stage Ⅱ ~ Ⅲ breast cancer who were treated between May 2013 and May 2013 were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 44 cases in each group. Patients in the control group were treated with CEF (cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + fluorouracil). ET (epirubicin + paclitaxel) was used in the observation group to compare the efficacy and adverse reactions between the two groups. Results After treatment, the total effective rate (90.9%) in observation group was significantly higher than that in control group (70.5%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The two groups of patients did not appear liver function damage and myocardial injury, and nausea and vomiting, hair loss and other adverse reactions was 100%. Myelosuppression was observed in 24 patients in the observation group and bone marrow suppression in 14 patients in the control group, with significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). Conclusion In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients, ET chemotherapy is better than CEF, but the adverse reactions caused by ET are more serious. In clinical practice, it is necessary to monitor the incidence of adverse reactions in patients with appropriate dose of ET and timely give appropriate remission therapy .