中国癌症杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (12): 1018-1024.doi: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2016.12.009

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

TPF诱导化疗或PF诱导化疗联合同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的临床观察

马雄辉,梁彩霞,江丹贤,左瑜芳,官成浓   

  1. 广东医学院附属医院肿瘤科,广东 湛江 524023
  • 出版日期:2016-12-30 发布日期:2017-01-23
  • 通信作者: 官成浓 E-mail: 191444331@qq.com

Clinical observation of TPF induction chemotherapy versus PF induction chemotherapy combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

MA Xionghui, LIANG Caixia, JIANG Danxian, ZUO Yufang, GUAN Chengnong   

  1. Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong College, Zhanjiang 524023, Guangdong Province, China
  • Published:2016-12-30 Online:2017-01-23
  • Contact: GUAN Chengnong E-mail: 191444331@qq.com

摘要: 背景与目的:TPF(多西他赛+顺铂+氟尿嘧啶)诱导化疗加同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的疗效尚不清楚。该研究旨在比较TPF诱导化疗或PF(顺铂+氟尿嘧啶)诱导化疗联合同期放化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的疗效和耐受性。方法:将局部晚期鼻咽癌患者随机分为两组。TPF组116例接受TPF诱导化疗(多西他赛60 mg/m2,第1天+顺铂60 mg/m2,第1天+氟尿嘧啶750 mg/m2,持续静脉滴注120 h),每3周重复,共3个疗程。PF组116例接受PF诱导化疗(顺铂80 mg/m2,第1天+氟尿嘧啶750 mg/m2,持续静脉滴注120 h),每3周重复,共3个疗程。诱导化疗结束后行同期放化疗,放疗采用调强适形放疗(intensity modulated radiation therapy,IMRT)技术,大体肿瘤靶区(gross tumor volume,GTV)6 810 cGy/30次,5次/周,共6周,同期化疗用顺铂80 mg/m2,第1、22天。评价完全缓解(complete response,CR)、部分缓解(partial response,PR)和有效缓解率(response rate,RR),RR=CR+PR。评价两组患者的近期疗效及不良反应,并随访比较5年无进展生存(progression-free survival,PFS)和5年总生存(overall survival,OS)。结果:诱导化疗结束后和治疗结束后13周TPF组的有效缓解率都高于PF组,两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.001,P=0.002);TPF组中位复发时间为2.98年,5年的PFS为84.48%,PF组中位复发时间为2.32年,5年的PFS为82.75%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.458);TPF组5年的OS为87.06%,PF组5年的OS为85.34%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.274)。TPF组在中性粒细胞下降、血小板下降、肝功能和肾功能损伤、腹泻以及黏膜坏死的发生上均明显高于PF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),TPF组发生Ⅲ度和Ⅳ度不良反应较PF组明显增高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论:TPF方案诱导化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的临床疗效并不优于PF方案诱导化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌,且TPF方案诱导化疗的不良反应较PF方案明显,临床上不适合推广。

关键词: 局部晚期鼻咽癌, 诱导化疗, 同期放化疗

Abstract: Background and purpose: The effect of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma is unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and tolerance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with TPF versus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Methods: Patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were randomly divided into 2 groups: Group TPF and Group PF. Group TPF: One hundred and sixteen nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients received TPF consisting of docetaxel at 60 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin at 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 750 mg/m2 by 24 h continuous infusion for 5 days for 3 cycles with a 21 day interval; Group PF: One hundred and sixteen nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients received PF consisting of cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 750 mg/m2 by 24 h continuous infusion for 5 days for 3 cycles with a 21 day interval. After the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, all the patients received intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with concomitant chemotherapy consisting of 2 cycles of cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 22. The prescribed doses were 6 810 cGy at 2.27 Gy/fraction to the gross tumor volume (GTV) with 5 daily fractions per week for 6 weeks. The acute toxicity and tumor response rate (RR), including complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), were evaluated. Additionally, the 5-year progress-free survival (PFS) rates and overall survival (OS) rates were further evaluated. Results: RR of Group TPF was higher than that of group PF at the end of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and within 13 weeks of the completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The median recurrence time of TPF group was 2.98 years, and the 5-year PFS was 84.48%. The median recurrence time of PF group was 2.32 years, and the 5-year PFS was 82.75%. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P=0.458). The 5-year OS of TPF group was 87.06%, and for the PF group was 85.34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P=0.274). The incidence of leukopenia, thrombocyte penia, liver and kidney damage, diarrhea and mucosa necrosis in TPF group were significantly higher than those in PF group (P<0.001). The Ⅲ and Ⅳ degrees adverse reactions in TPF group were significantly higher than those in PF group (P<0.001). Conclusion: TPF induction chemotherapy was not superior to the PF regimen for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. It should not be recommended in terms of more acute toxicity.

Key words: Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Induction chemotherapy, Concurrent chemoradiotherapy