摘要
本文介绍了应用FAC和COMFP两组方案治疗晚期乳腺癌68例的疗效和比较。全组病例中,FAC组共20例,其中CR10例(50％),PR5例(25％),有效率(CR+PR)为75％(15/20),中位缓解期6个月。COMFP组共48例,CR11例(22.9％) PR17例(35.4％),有效率为58.3％ (28/48),中位缓解期7个月。两组方案疗效比较无显著统计学差异(P>0.05)。文中并对FAC及COMFP两组方案的优缺点作了比较,认为FAC方案适宜于诱导治疗,而COMFP方案可作维持治疗。 有2例伴有心脏病的病人,应用表阿霉素代替阿霉素的FEC方案治疗,取得完全缓解。
During 1982-1987, 68 cases with advanced breast carcinoma were randomly allocated to receive either a five drug combination, consisting of CTX, VCR, 5-Fu, MTX and PRED (COMFP) or a combination of 5-FU, ADM, and CTX (FAC). The overall response rate was 75% (15/20) with 50%(10/20)CR and 25%(5/20)PR in FAC group as compared with an overall response rate of 58.3% (28/48)[22.9% (11/48)CR, 35.4% (17/48)PRlin CoMFP group, but there was no statistically significant difference between this two groups (p>0.05). The median duration of remission was 6 and 7 motnhs, respectively for FAC and COMFP regimen.The data show that FAC regimen could be superior to COMFP regimen in causing the disease to regess but it has a higher toxicity of the former, such as myelosuppression and cardi-otoxicity; leading the patients unable to tolerate long term treatment, howerer, The low toxicity of the COMFP regimen favor its routine use. This suggests that the FAC regimen may be used for remission induction and the COMFP for maintenance treatment in advanced breast carcinoma.Two patients with heart disease were treated with FEC regimen in which adriamycin was replaced by epirubicin, no cardiotoxicity were observed.
出处
《癌症》
SCIE
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
1989年第2期113-115,共3页
Chinese Journal of Cancer
