摘要
目的: 探讨喉癌治疗方法的选择和分析喉癌治疗失败的原因。方法:总结本科 1989~ 1991年 3年间经根治的 151例喉癌病例,分单纯放疗、全喉切除术、部分喉切除术、挽救性手术 4个治疗组,分析各组的 3年和 5年生存率以及各组的失败原因。结果:单纯放疗组、全喉切除组、部分喉切除组、挽救性手术组的 3年和 5年生存率,分别为 45.9% ,66.7% ,94.4% ,88.9%和 24.3% ,56.5% ,86.1% ,66.7%,各组间差异有显著性;在晚期(Ⅲ+Ⅳ期)病例中, 3年和 5年生存率分别为 27.3% ,65.2% ,87.5% ,75.0% 和 9.1% ,54.5% ,62.5% ,50.0%,组间有显著性差异;在早期(Ⅰ+Ⅱ期)病例中,单纯放疗组、部分喉切除组、挽救性手术组的 3年 和 5年生存率分别为 73.3% ,96.4% ,100.0%和 46.7% ,92.6% ,80.0% ,各组间有显著性差异。各组治疗失败的原因均以原发灶复发为主。结论:喉癌的治疗以手术疗效最好;原发灶复发是喉癌治疗失败的主要原因。
Objective: The current study was designed to investigate the choice of different treatment modalities and analyze the causes of treatment failure. Methods: 151 cases of laryngeal cancer from 1989 to 1991 treated in our department were reviewed. The treatment modalities were classified into four groups: simple radiotherapy, total laryngectomy, partial laryngectomy, and salvage surgery for the fail after radical radiotherapy.The 3- year and 5- year survival rate,and their treatment failure was analyzed.Results: The 3- year and 5- year survival rates of the four groups including simple radiotherapy,total laryngectomy, partial laryngectomy and salvage surgery were 45.9% , 66.7% , 94.4% , 88.9% and 24.3% , 56.5% , 86.1% , 66.7% , respectively. There was significant difference between each group. The 3- year and 5- year survival rate among the four groups in advanced stage(StageⅢ andⅣ ) were 27.3% , 65.2% , 87.5% , 75.0% and 9.1% , 54.5% , 62.5% , 50.0% , respectively; and in StageⅠ andⅡ among simple radiotherapy, partial laryngectomy and salvage surgery groups were 73.3% , 96.4% , 100.0% and 46.7% , 92.6% , 80.0% , respectively. The differences were all significant. Tumor relapse was the main factor causing treatment failure in all groups. Conclusion: Surgery is the most effective way to treat laryngeal cancer and treatment failure can be mainly ascribed to tumor relapse.
出处
《癌症》
SCIE
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2000年第11期1012-1015,共4页
Chinese Journal of Cancer
关键词
喉肿瘤
外科手术
失败原因
生存率
Laryngeal neoplasm/treatment
Treatment modality
Causes of treatment failure
Survival rate analysis