论文部分内容阅读
目的:分析调强放疗和普通放疗2种方法给医院和患者带来的获益因素。方法:对2008年3月～2010年10月两院收治的患者,按研究标准进行随机分组,共85例入组。其中,调强(适形)放疗组43例,普通放疗组42例。两组患者采用不同的方法治疗,然后对其不同方法治疗的患者从疗效、副作用、费用以及设备投入或操作过程等进行分析比较,找出相关的利弊因素,为临床选择治疗方法提供理论依据。结果:通过分析发现调强组、普放组、近期生存率、转移率无差别;副作用情况:调强组急性黏膜反应、溃疡较明显,普放组张口困难、听力下降较明显,其他口干、咽痛、食欲下降、皮肤改变、骨髓抑制等无明显差异,从总费用看,调强组是普放组的6倍左右。结论:两种方法不同,各有利弊因素,但从患者获益情况看,调强组疗程较短,治疗靶区精确,副作用相对较轻,远期疗效可能优于普通组,因此,多数患者还是可以接受的,从医院角度看,调强放疗增加技术员的工作量和设备投资,但经济收入明显增加,也符合“效—价—比”规律。因此,提出如果患者有经济实力,应提倡调强放疗。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the benefit factors brought to hospitals and patients by two methods of intensity modulated radiotherapy and general radiotherapy. Methods: From March 2008 to October 2010, two hospitalized patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the research standards. A total of 85 patients were enrolled. Among them, the intensity (conformal) radiotherapy group 43 cases, 42 cases of general radiotherapy. Two groups of patients treated by different methods, and then different methods of treatment of patients from the efficacy, side effects, costs and equipment investment or operation process analysis and comparison to find the relevant pros and cons of factors for the clinical choice of treatment provides a theoretical basis. Results: There was no difference in the recent survival rate and metastasis rate between the tonic group and the general control group. The side effects were: the acute mucosal reaction in the tonic group, the more obvious ulcer, the difficulty in opening the mouth in the general group, the more significant hearing loss, , Sore throat, loss of appetite, skin changes, bone marrow suppression and other no significant difference, from the total cost of view, IMRT group is about 6 times the general group. Conclusion: The two methods are different, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, judging from the patients’ benefit, the IMRT has a short course of treatment, accurate treatment target area and relatively mild side effects, and the long-term efficacy may be superior to the common group. Therefore, most patients Still acceptable, from the hospital point of view, IMRT to increase the workload of technicians and equipment investment, but the economic income increased significantly, also in line with “efficiency - price - than ” law. Therefore, if the patient has the financial strength, IMRT should be advocated.