• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂方案与吉西他滨联合顺铂方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效及影响比较。

Comparison of the efficacy and impact of GEMOX and GDP in the treatment of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

机构信息

Department of Hematology, the affiliated Huaian Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Huaian 223002, P.R. China.

出版信息

J BUON. 2020 Mar-Apr;25(2):1042-1049.

PMID:32521904
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and impact of GEMOX and GDP in the treatment of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

A total of 68 patients with NHL admitted to the hospitals of the authors from February 2013 to April 2016 were equally distributed into the GEMOX Group (treated with Gemcitabine and Oxaliplatin) and the GDP Group (treated with Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, and Dexamethasone), with cycle repetition every 3 weeks. The efficacy was analyzed every two weeks. The side effects were analyzed once a week. Comparison of survival was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test and Cox univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Efficacy in the two groups was not statistically different (p>0.05). The incidence of III-IV grade of nausea and vomiting in the GDP Group was higher than in the GEMOX Group (p<0.05). The overall incidence decreased hemoglobin, nausea and vomiting, and renal dysfunction of the GDP Group was also higher than in the GEMOX Group (p<0.05). Analysis by multivariate Cox model found that the clinical classification and the grade of malignancy were independent prognostic factors (p<0.05). The odds ratio (OR) values of the clinical classification in the GEMOX Group and the GDP Group were 2.874 and 24.074, respectively. The OR values of the grade of malignancy in the GEMOX Group and the GDP Group were 14.034 and 6.873, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both the GEMOX regimen and the GDP regimen had good short-term efficacy on NHL patients, but the GEMOX regimen is to be preferred since as it had fewer side effects than the GDP regimen.

摘要

目的

比较吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂(GEMOX)与吉西他滨联合顺铂、地塞米松(GDP)方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)的疗效和影响。

方法

选取 2013 年 2 月至 2016 年 4 月在我院治疗的 NHL 患者 68 例,随机分为 GEMOX 组(吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂)和 GDP 组(吉西他滨联合顺铂、地塞米松),每组 34 例。每 3 周重复一个周期,每两周评价一次疗效,每周评价一次不良反应。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法和 log-rank 检验进行生存比较,采用 Cox 单因素和多因素回归分析。

结果

两组疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。GDP 组 III-IV 级恶心呕吐发生率高于 GEMOX 组(P<0.05)。两组均出现不同程度的血红蛋白降低、恶心呕吐和肾功能不全,且 GDP 组发生率高于 GEMOX 组(P<0.05)。多因素 Cox 模型分析发现,临床分期和恶性程度分级是独立预后因素(P<0.05)。GEMOX 组和 GDP 组临床分期的优势比(OR)值分别为 2.874 和 24.074,恶性程度分级的 OR 值分别为 14.034 和 6.873。

结论

GEMOX 方案和 GDP 方案治疗 NHL 患者均有较好的近期疗效,但 GEMOX 方案不良反应更少,优于 GDP 方案。

相似文献

1
Comparison of the efficacy and impact of GEMOX and GDP in the treatment of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂方案与吉西他滨联合顺铂方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效及影响比较。
J BUON. 2020 Mar-Apr;25(2):1042-1049.
2
[Efficacy of GDP regimen (gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin) on relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: a report of 24 cases].GDP方案(吉西他滨、地塞米松和顺铂)治疗复发或难治性侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效:附24例报告
Ai Zheng. 2008 Nov;27(11):1222-5.
3
[Efficacy and safety evaluation of gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin in lymphoma patients after failure of multiple chemotherapy regimens].吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂对多程化疗方案失败的淋巴瘤患者的疗效及安全性评估
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2014 Feb;36(2):137-40.
4
[Efficacy Analysis of GEMOX Regimen for Treatment of Refractory Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma].吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂方案治疗难治性非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效分析
Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2017 Oct;25(5):1415-1419. doi: 10.7534/j.issn.1009-2137.2017.05.023.
5
Gemcitabine, cisplatin, and dexamethasone and ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide regimens have similar efficacy as salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma: A retrospectively comparative study.吉西他滨、顺铂和地塞米松方案以及异环磷酰胺、卡铂和依托泊苷方案作为复发/难治性侵袭性淋巴瘤挽救治疗的疗效相似:一项回顾性比较研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Dec 4;99(49):e23412. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023412.
6
Study on effectiveness of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) for relapsed or refractory AIDS-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.吉西他滨、地塞米松和顺铂(GDP)治疗复发或难治性艾滋病相关非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效研究。
Ann Hematol. 2012 Nov;91(11):1757-63. doi: 10.1007/s00277-012-1518-y. Epub 2012 Jul 13.
7
Survivin as prognostic and predictive factor in patients treated with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin for relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL.生存素作为吉西他滨、地塞米松和顺铂治疗复发或难治性侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的预后和预测因素。
Med Oncol. 2014 Nov;31(11):244. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0244-9. Epub 2014 Oct 8.
8
Safety and efficacy of single-day GemOx regimen in patients with pancreatobiliary cancer: a single institution experience.单日内 GemOx 方案治疗胰胆肿瘤患者的安全性和疗效:单机构经验。
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2010 Mar;9(2):207-13. doi: 10.1517/14740330903555181.
9
Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial.吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂与单用吉西他滨治疗局部晚期或转移性胰腺癌的比较:GERCOR和GISCAD III期试验结果
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3509-16. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.023.
10
Salvage therapy with gemcitabine, ifosfamide, dexamethasone, and oxaliplatin (GIDOX) for B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a consortium for improving survival of lymphoma (CISL) trial.吉西他滨、异环磷酰胺、地塞米松和奥沙利铂(GIDOX)挽救性治疗 B 细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤:改善淋巴瘤生存联盟(CISL)试验。
Invest New Drugs. 2011 Feb;29(1):154-60. doi: 10.1007/s10637-009-9320-y. Epub 2009 Sep 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Rituximab combined with GDP regimen can effectively improve the efficacy and immune function of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.利妥昔单抗联合GDP方案可有效提高非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效及免疫功能。
Am J Transl Res. 2022 Sep 15;14(9):6313-6322. eCollection 2022.
2
Oxaliplatin induces the PARP1-mediated parthanatos in oral squamous cell carcinoma by increasing production of ROS.奥沙利铂通过增加 ROS 的产生诱导口腔鳞状细胞癌中的 PARP1 介导的 parthanatos。
Aging (Albany NY). 2021 Jan 20;13(3):4242-4257. doi: 10.18632/aging.202386.