| Objective:Observe the clinical curative effects and safety on Guben Xiaozheng Decoction combined with Gefitinib in the treatment of advanced pulmonary adencarcinoma patients with the syndrome of yin deficiency and heat-toxicity.Method:The study selected 60 advanced pulmonary adencarcinoma patients who comes from the First Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Traditonal Chinese Medicine and the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Harbin Medical University.These pulmonary adenocarcinoma outpatients are from May 1,2014 to January 31,2016.Randomly divided the 60 patients into treatment group and control group for 30 cases each.The 30 patients in the control group were given targeted therapy Gefitinib (Gefitinib tabet 250mg, once daily, oral),while the 30 patients in treatment group take Guben Xiaozheng Decoction (Guben Xiaozheng Decoction 300m,twice a day,after breakfast and dinne,drink warmly) on the basis of taking gefitinib.Testing the tumor volume, level of serum tumor markers(CEA, CA125),Karnofsky performance status, weight,scores of traditional Chinese medicine syndrom and adverse reactions before and after 3-month-therapy in 60 patients respectively.Test blood examination,live rfunction and kidney function every 4 weeks during treatment.Obverse the patients’changes colsely every week. Process the collected data with SPSS 21.0 software in statistical analysis method for results.Results:1.In the aspect of the recent curative effect on tumor volume, the objective response rate is 76.67% in the treatment group,which is better than 73.33% in the control group,meanwhile,the disease control rate is 93.33% in the treatment group,which is better than 90.00% in the control group,but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).2.In the aspect of the level of the serum tumor markers (CEA, CA125), the level of the serum tumor markers (CEA, CA125) in two groups are both lower than before treatment and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05),after the treatment the level of the serum tumor markers (CEA, CA125) in treatment group is lower than the control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).3.In the aspect of the KPS, afer treatment the KPS in treatment group is higher than before,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05),while the KPS in control group is lower than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),after treatment the KPS in treatment group is higher than in the control group,the terapeutic response rate in the treatment group was 86.67% which was higher than 66.67% in the control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).4.In the aspect of the weight, afer treatment the weight in treatment group is higher than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05),while the weight in control group is lower than before,the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05),after treatment the weight in treatment group is higher than in the control group,the terapeutic response rate in the treatment group was 73.30% which was higher than 30.00% in the control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).5.In the aspect of the scores of TCM syndrom, afer treatment the scores of TCM syndrom in both group were lower than before,the difference in treatment group was statistically significant (P< 0.05),the difference in control group was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),after treatment the scores of TCM syndrom in treatment group is lower than in the control group,the terapeutic response rate in the treatment group was 93.34% which was higher than 20.00% in the control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).6.In the aspect of the level of WBC, afer treatment the level of WBC in both group were lower than before,the difference in treatment group was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),the difference in control group was statistically significant (P< 0.05),after treatment the level of WBC in control group is lower than in the treatment group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).7.In the aspect of the level of PLT, afer treatment the level of PLT in the treatment group was lower than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),the level of PLT in the control group was higher than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),after treatment the level of PLT in control group is higher than in the treatment group,but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).8.In the aspect of the level of HGB, afer treatment the level of HGB in the treatment group was higher than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05),the level of HGB in the control group was lower than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05),after treatment the level of HGB in control group is lower than in the treatment group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).9.In the aspect of the level of ALT, afer treatment the level of ALT in the treatment group was lower than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05),the level of ALT in the control group was higher than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05),after treatment the level of ALT in control group is higher than in the treatment group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).10.In the aspect of the level of AST, afer treatment the level of AST in the treatment group was lower than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05),the level of AST in the control group was higher than before to some extent,the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05),after treatment the level of AST in control group is higher than in the treatment group,but the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05).11.In the aspect of the level of BUN, afer treatment the level of BUN in both group were higher than before,the difference in both group was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),after treatment the level of BUN in control group is lower than in the treatment group,but the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).12.In the aspect of the level of Cr, afer treatment the level of Cr in the treatment group was lower than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),the level of Cr in the control group was higher than before,the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05),after treatment the level of Cr in control group is lower than in the treatment group,but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).13. In the aspect of the adverse reactions,the patients in both groups occured diarrhea and rash to some extent during the treatment,the incidence rate and degree of the diarrhea and rash in the treatment group is lower than in the control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusion:1.The treatment of Guben Xiaozheng Decoction combined with Gefitinib can stable the tumor volume in advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients.2.The treatment of Guben Xiaozheng Decoction combined with Gefitinib can lower the level of serum tumor markers(CEA, CA125) in advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients.3.The treatment of Guben Xiaozheng Decoction combined with Gefitinib can increase the Karnofsky performance status, weight and the scores of traditional Chinese medicine syndrom in advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients.4.Guben Xiaozheng Decoction can reduce the adverse reactions caused by targeted therapy in advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients.5.Guben xiaozheng Decoction has no adverse effects on advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients in liver function or kidney function. Guben xiaozheng Decoction has good security. |
PDF Full Text Request