论文部分内容阅读
目的对比光动力疗法与内镜下支架放置术对进展期食管癌的疗效和安全性。方法18例行内镜下光动力治疗,22例行内镜下支架放置术,根据患者的耐受情况辅助化疗。两组患者的年龄、性别、肿瘤大小、分期、合并症等相比,无统计学差异。对比两种治疗方法对进展期食管癌的疗效和安全性,观察毒副作用,随访生存时间。结果光动力治疗组平均随访时间6·7(0·5~19)月;临床症状缓解率77·8%(14/18);内镜下完全应答率16·7%(3/18),部分应答率为38·9%(7/18);半年生存率55·6%(10/18),1年生存率22·2%(4/18);中位生存期为7个月。1例术后1周出现大出血,并发症发生率为5·6%(1/18);未见光过敏等不良反应发生。支架术组平均随访时间3·5(1~19)月;临床症状缓解率81·8%(18/22);半年生存率22·7%(5/22),1年生存率9·1%(2/22);中位生存期为3个月。两组相比,半年生存率和中位生存期之间差异有统计学意义(P<0·05)。结论光动力疗法与支架放置术均可显著改善进展期食管癌患者的临床症状,但前者更明显延长患者的生存期,是治疗进展期食管癌又一有效手段。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy with endoscopic stenting for advanced esophageal cancer. Methods 18 cases of endoscopic photodynamic therapy, 22 cases of endoscopic stent placement, according to patient tolerance adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, tumor size, stage, and comorbidities. To compare the curative effect and safety of the two treatment methods on advanced esophageal cancer, observe the side effects and follow-up survival time. Results The average follow-up time of photodynamic therapy group was 6.7 (0.5 to 19) months; the clinical symptom response rate was 77.8% (14/18); the complete response rate was 16.7% (3/18) The partial response rate was 38.9% (7/18). The half-year survival rate was 55.6% (10/18) and the one-year survival rate was 22.2% (4/18). The median survival time was 7 months. One patient developed massive hemorrhage one week after operation, with a complication rate of 5.6% (1/18). No adverse reactions such as light allergy occurred. The average follow-up time was 3.5 years (range 1 ~ 19) months in the stent group, 81.8% (18/22) in the clinical symptom relief group, and half a year survival rate was 22.7% (5/22). The 1-year survival rate was 9.1% % (2/22); median survival was 3 months. There was a significant difference between the two groups in survival rate and median survival (P <0.05). Conclusion Both PDT and stent placement can significantly improve the clinical symptoms of advanced esophageal cancer patients. However, the former is more effective in prolonging the survival of patients with esophageal cancer and is another effective treatment for advanced esophageal cancer.