论文部分内容阅读
目的比较紫杉醇联合表阿霉素(PE)方案与传统的CEF方案用于Ⅲ期乳腺癌新辅助化疗中的疗效及化疗相关的毒副反应。方法选取术前经空心针穿刺病理证实的54例Ⅲ期乳腺癌患者随机分为PE组及CEF组,每组27例,完成3周期新辅助化疗后评定两组有效率、病理完全缓解率(PCR)及化疗相关的毒副反应。结果 PE组总有效率为81.48%,PCR率为18.52%;CEF组总有效率为59.26%,该组患者术后病理均无完全缓解,两组差异显著(P<0.05);两组均未发生Ⅳ度不良反应,化疗相关不良反应相近,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论 PE方案与CEF方案均可临床用于乳腺癌的术前新辅助化疗,但PE方案有效率及病理完全缓解率优于CEF方案。
Objective To compare the efficacy and chemotherapy-related side effects of paclitaxel combined with epirubicin (PE) regimen with traditional CEF regimen in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of stage Ⅲ breast cancer. Methods Fifty-four patients with stage Ⅲ breast cancer who had been proved by needle-aspiration needle biopsy before operation were randomly divided into PE group and CEF group, with 27 cases in each group. After completing 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the two groups were evaluated as effective rate and complete pathological response rate PCR) and chemotherapy-related side effects. Results The total effective rate was 81.48% in PE group and the PCR rate was 18.52%. The total effective rate in CEF group was 59.26%. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05) Ⅳ degree of adverse reactions occurred, chemotherapy-related adverse reactions were similar, the difference was not significant (P> 0.05). Conclusions Both PE and CEF can be used in preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. However, the effective rate of PE and the complete remission rate of pathology are better than that of CEF.