口服或静滴VP-16联合DDP方案治疗非小细胞肺癌的临床观察

Comparison of therapeutic effects of oral or intravenous VP 16 plus DDP regimen for non small cell lung cancer

比较口服VP 16联合DDP与静滴VP 16联合DDP方案(EP方案)治疗非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的临床疗效和毒性。方法 :选择经病理证实的NSCLC78例 ,随机分为两组。治疗组(40例) :VP 16100mg,静滴 ,d1,VP 16100mg,口服 ,d2～11,DDP80mg/m2,静滴 ,d1。对照组(38例) :VP 16100mg,静滴 ,d1～5,DDP剂量及用法同治疗组。两组均每3～4周为一疗程。结果 :治疗组及对照组的总有效率分别为45 0 %(18/40)和36 8 %(14/38) ,中位生存期分别为9 5月及8 4月 ,均无显著差异(P>0 05)。两组毒副反应主要为胃肠道反应及白细胞减少(P>0 05)。但治疗组粘膜反应及Ⅳ度白细胞减少 ,血小板减少均比对照组严重(P<0 05)。结论 :口服VP 16联合DDP是治疗NSCLC较为有效的方案 ,且给药简便、易行 。

Objective: To evaluate the clinic results of oral or intravenous VP 16 plus DDP regimen for non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Methods: Seventy eigth cases of pathologically proved NSCLC were randomly divided into two groups Therapeutic group: Forty cases, received VP 16 100 mg, ivdrip and DDP 80 mg/m2,ivdrip, at d1, and VP 16 100 mg, per oral, d2～11 Control group: Thirty eigth cases, received VP 16 100 mg, ivdrip d1～5, DDP 80 mg/m2, ivdrip, d1 Treatment was repeated every 3～4 weeks for thetwo groups Results: The response rates of the two groups were 45 0%( 18/40 ) and 36 8%( 14/38 ) With the median survival time of 9 5 months and 8 4 months, respectively The main side effects were gastrointestinal reaction and leukopenia There were no statistically significant differences between two groups(P>0 05) But mucotitis and IV leukopenia, thrombocytopenia in the therapeutic group were more serious than that in the control group(P<0 05) Conclusions:Oral VP 16 plus DDP is convenient for administration and may be a more effective regimen for treatmeat of NSCLC, worthy to further clinic study