切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华乳腺病杂志(电子版) ›› 2008, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (01) : 18 -23. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2008.01.006

临床研究

新辅助化疗TE 与CEF 方案治疗乳腺癌的临床比较
刘志洋1, 张瑾1,()   
  1. 1.300060 天津,天津医科大学附属肿瘤医院乳腺三科
  • 收稿日期:2007-04-22 出版日期:2008-02-01
  • 通信作者: 张瑾

Clinical comparison of TE versus CEF regimens as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Zhi-yang LIU1, Jin ZHANG,1()   

  1. 1.Third Department of Breast, Tianjin Cancer Hospital of Tianjin Medical University,Tianjin 300060,China
  • Received:2007-04-22 Published:2008-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Jin ZHANG
引用本文:

刘志洋, 张瑾. 新辅助化疗TE 与CEF 方案治疗乳腺癌的临床比较[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2008, 02(01): 18-23.

Zhi-yang LIU, Jin ZHANG. Clinical comparison of TE versus CEF regimens as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), 2008, 02(01): 18-23.

目的

比较新辅助化疗TE(紫杉类联合蒽环类)及CEF(环磷酰胺、表阿霉素、氟尿嘧啶)方案治疗乳腺癌的疗效,不良反应及其与组织病理学的关系;探讨新辅助化疗对ER、PR、HER-2、P53 表达状况的影响。

方法

收集天津肿瘤医院2001 年1 月至2006 年12 月临床分期Ⅱ~Ⅲ期的行TE 新辅助化疗患者167 例,行CEF 新辅助化疗患者256 例。 化疗皆以21 d 为1 个周期。 所有患者均完成3 个周期以上的化疗后对两组患者临床效果的差异进行评价。

结果

乳腺癌原发肿瘤的总缓解率(RR),TE 组为86%(144/167),CEF 组为67%(172/256),两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P <0.01)。 临床完全缓解率(cCR),TE 组为32%(54/167),CEF 组为23%(59/256),两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。 病理完全缓解率(pCR),TE 组为19%(32/167),CEF 组为14%(36/256),两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。 两组各有2 例患者出现疾病进展(PD)。 主要不良反应为白细胞下降、胃肠道反应,TE 组脱发较严重。 两组化疗方案对ER、PR、HER-2、P53 表达的差异均无统计学意义。

结论

新辅助化疗TE 与CEF 方案对乳腺癌均有较高的缓解率,且TE 方案优于CEF 方案。化疗的不良反应均在可耐受范围之内,而TE 组患者的脱发等副反应要高于CEF 组。 两组新辅助化疗对ER、PR、HER-2、P53 表达的影响无统计学意义。

Objective

To compare the efficacy and side effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with TE and CEF regimens in the treatment of breast cancer and their correlations with histological and pathological status,and to investigate the effect of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the expressions of ER,PR,HER-2 and P53 in breast cancer.

Methods

From January 2001 to December 2006,a total of 423 patients with clinical stage Ⅱ-Ⅲbreast cancer were admitted in Tianjin Cancer Hospital; among them 167 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with TE regimen in one group,and 256 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CEF regimen in the other group.Patients in both groups received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a interval of 21 days for at least 3 cycles.Clinical response and side effects were assessed in both groups.

Results

For primary breast carcinoma,the overall response rate (RR) was 86%(144/167)in TE arm and 67%(172/256) in CEF arm (P <0.01),and clinical complete response rate (cCR) was 32%(54/167)in TE arm and 23% (59/256) in CEF arm (P <0.05),and pathologic complete response rate(pCR) was 19%(32/167)in TE arm and 14% (36/256)in CEF arm (P >0.05).There were two patients with progressing disease (PD) in each group. The major toxicities,including leucopenia and gastroenteric reactions were similar in both groups,but alopecia was more severe in TE arm. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could not significantly change the expressions of ER,PR,HER-2 and P53.

Conclusions

TE and CEF regimens as neoadjuvant chemotherapy are both effective and safe for primary breast cancer. TE regimen is superior to CEF regimen in response rate, and side effects are all tolerable,but more alopecia occurred in TE arm.The effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the expression of ER,PR,HER-2,and P53 are not obvious.

表1 两组患者临床资料比较
表2 两组患者缓解率的比较
表3 两组患者总缓解率与临床分期的关系
表4 两组患者总缓解率与病理类型的关系
表5 两组患者总缓解率与淋巴结分期的关系
表6 两组患者总缓解率与组织学分级的关系
表7 两组患者总缓解率与激素受体状态之间的关系
表8 两组患者总缓解率与HER-2 受体状况的关系
表9 两组患者化疗前后ER、PR、HER-2 和P53 的表达状况
表10 两组患者化疗副反应的比较 [例数(%)]
[1]
Heller W,Mazhar D,Ward R,et al.Neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil,epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy followed by docetaxel in refractory patients with locally advanced breast cancer.Oncol Rep,2007,17:253 -259.
[2]
Sarid D,Ron I G,Sperber F,et al. Neoadjuvant treatment with paclitaxel and epirubicin in invasive breast cancer:a phase Ⅱstudy.Clin Drug Investig,2006,26:691 -701.
[3]
Fernández Morales L A,Seguí M A,Andreu X,et al .Analysis of the pathologic response to primary chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer grouped according to estrogen receptor,progesterone receptor,and HER-2 status.Clin Breast Cancer,2007,7:559 -564.
[4]
Tiezzi D G,Andrade J M,Ribeiro silva A,et al. HER-2,p53,p21 and hormonal receptors proteins expression as predictive factors of response and prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel plus epirubicin combination. BMC Cancer,2007,7:36.
[5]
Learn P A,Yeh I T,McNutt M,et al.HER-2/neu expression as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant docetaxel in patients with operable breast carcinoma.Cancer,2005,103:2252 -2260.
[6]
Fernández Sánchez M,Gamboa Dominguez A,Uribe N,et al.Clinical and pathological predictors of the response to neoadjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer.Med Oncol,2006,23:171 -183.
[7]
Zhang B,Zhang Q,Zhao L,et al. Assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi,2006,28:867 -870.
[8]
Tacca O,Penault Llorca F,Abrial C,et al. Changes in and prognostic value of hormone receptor status in a series of operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Oncologist,2007,12:636 -643.
[9]
Varga Z,Caduff R,Pestalozzi B,et al . Stability of the HER-2 gene after primary chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer.Virchows Arch,2005,446:136 -141.
[10]
Arens N,Bleyl U,Hildenbrand R,et al. HER-2/neu,p53,Ki67,and hormone receptors do not change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Virchows Arch,2005,446:489 -496.
[11]
Tfayli A, Holter J, Bova A, et al. Activity of combination chemotherapy,docetaxel and epirubicin as neoadjuvant therapy for women with breast cancer.Anticancer Res,2006,26:4911 -4916.
[12]
Han S,Kim S B,Kang S S, et al. A phase Ⅱ study of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus doxorubicin (KBCS-01) in stageⅡ,Ⅲ breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat,2006,98:57 -61.
[13]
Hirano A,Shimizu T,Imamura H,et al. The combination of epirubicin plus docetaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally-advanced breast cancer. Anticancer Res, 2006, 26:581 -584.
[1] 洪玮, 叶细容, 刘枝红, 杨银凤, 吕志红. 超声影像组学联合临床病理特征预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗完全病理缓解的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 571-579.
[2] 赵阳, 肖迎聪, 巨艳, 党晓智, 蔡林利, 薛文欣, 李洋, 肖瑶, 郭妤绮, 宋宏萍. 自动乳腺超声联合免疫组化早期预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗病理完全缓解的临床价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(04): 361-369.
[3] 王聪, 李云涛, 唐甜甜, 王鑫蕊, 吕鑫, 范志刚. 多基因检测对激素受体阳性、HER-2阴性乳腺癌新辅助化疗疗效预测的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 292-296.
[4] 杨焕, 马靓, 沈俊, 董丽丽, 孙文雯. 乳腺癌新辅助化疗患者支持性照顾需求与症状群及应对方式的相关性[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 224-230.
[5] 铁晓玲, 刘毅, 杨颖, 车凤玉. Rubinstein-Taybi综合征先证者3例并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(04): 452-459.
[6] 许革新, 何琦, 毛智军, 普彦淞, 杨淦傑, 王建华. 我国胃肿瘤外科治疗现状及发展趋势—基于CiteSpace的可视化分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 350-356.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 冯义文. SOX新辅助化疗后腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术与常规根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 647-650.
[8] 刘洋, 方芳, 李莹, 李青, 陆倩, 魏善闯, XIAOMING GUAN, 张春花. 国产单孔手术机器人辅助vNOTES治疗妇科良性疾病[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 234-238.
[9] 张昊, 潘卫东. 胰腺癌新辅助化疗后可切除性评估现状及进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 629-633.
[10] 王军华, 王锐炫. 胰腺癌新辅助化疗现状和治疗策略[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 640-643.
[11] 韩加刚, 王振军. 梗阻性左半结肠癌的治疗策略[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 450-458.
[12] 石阳, 于剑锋, 曹可, 翟志伟, 叶春祥, 王振军, 韩加刚. 可扩张金属支架置入联合新辅助化疗治疗完全梗阻性左半结肠癌围手术期并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 464-471.
[13] 梁轩豪, 李小荣, 李亮, 林昌伟. 肠梗阻支架置入术联合新辅助化疗治疗结直肠癌急性肠梗阻的疗效及其预后的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 472-482.
[14] 张梦婷, 穷拉姆, 色珍, 李逸群, 德庆旺姆. 西藏地区藏族乳腺癌新辅助化疗的真实世界研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 441-446.
[15] 赵阳, 肖迎聪, 巨艳, 党晓智, 蔡林利, 薛文欣, 李洋, 肖瑶, 郭妤绮, 宋宏萍. 基于自动乳腺超声的列线图模型早期预测HER-2阳性乳腺癌新辅助化疗病理完全缓解的临床价值[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 355-362.
阅读次数
全文


摘要