Suppr超能文献

探讨紫杉醇/卡铂联合化疗与不联合蒽环类药物治疗子宫内膜癌的相对疗效。

Investigating the relative efficacies of combination chemotherapy of paclitaxel/carboplatin, with or without anthracycline, for endometrial carcinoma.

机构信息

Department of Gynecology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, 1179-3, Higashinari-ku-Nakamichi, Osaka 537-8511, Japan.

出版信息

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 May;285(5):1447-53. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2154-9. Epub 2011 Nov 30.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Recently a combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) (without an anthracycline) has begun to be used as an adjuvant or remission induction therapy, without any critical supportive evidence of its efficacy relative to a combination chemotherapy of taxane, platinum and anthracycline such as TEC (paclitaxel, epirubicin and carboplatin). The aim of our present study was to conduct the required clinical evaluations of the relative effectiveness of TC compared to TEC.

METHODS

A retrospective comparison between the efficacy of TEC and TC regimens used for endometrial carcinoma at the Osaka University Hospital and the Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases in Osaka, Japan, respectively, from 1999 to 2009 was performed. The clinical characteristics of the patients who received either TEC or TC were not significantly different, and TEC and TC therapies were initiated based on similar indications for chemotherapy. TEC regimen was paclitaxel (150 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (50 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 4). TC regimen consisted of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 5).

RESULTS

TEC was demonstrated to provide significantly better survival than TC as an adjuvant therapy for resected Stage III/IV diseases (p = 0.017 for progression-free survival and p = 0.014 for overall survival, by the log-rank test). However, in recurrent or more advanced cases, TC and TEC demonstrated similar effects on survival (p = 0.55 for progression-free survival and p = 0.63 for overall survival).

CONCLUSIONS

TEC should be offered as an adjuvant therapy to Stage III/IV patients. TC may be considered for recurrent or unresectable cases as a remission induction therapy.

摘要

目的

最近,紫杉醇联合卡铂(TC)(不含蒽环类药物)已开始被用作辅助或缓解诱导治疗,尽管其疗效相对于紫杉醇、铂类和蒽环类药物联合化疗(如 TEC[紫杉醇、表柔比星和卡铂])的疗效没有得到任何关键支持证据。我们目前的研究目的是对 TC 与 TEC 相对有效性进行必要的临床评估。

方法

回顾性比较了 1999 年至 2009 年在日本大阪大学医院和大阪医疗中心癌症与心血管疾病研究所分别使用 TEC 和 TC 方案治疗子宫内膜癌的疗效。接受 TEC 或 TC 的患者的临床特征无显著差异,且 TEC 和 TC 治疗均基于类似的化疗适应证开始。TEC 方案为紫杉醇(150mg/m²)、表柔比星(50mg/m²)和卡铂(AUC 4)。TC 方案由紫杉醇(175mg/m²)和卡铂(AUC 5)组成。

结果

作为 III/IV 期疾病(经对数秩检验,无进展生存期 p = 0.017,总生存期 p = 0.014)的辅助治疗,TEC 显著优于 TC,提示 TEC 具有更好的生存获益。然而,在复发性或更晚期病例中,TC 和 TEC 对生存的影响相似(无进展生存期 p = 0.55,总生存期 p = 0.63)。

结论

TEC 应作为 III/IV 期患者的辅助治疗方案。对于复发性或不可切除的病例,TC 可作为缓解诱导治疗方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/005c/3325403/13146929325d/404_2011_2154_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验