FOLFOX和FOLFIRI方案用于大肠黏液腺癌辅助化疗的比较

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2016.02.09

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (02) : 159 -162. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2016.02.09

所属专题：文献；

论著

FOLFOX和FOLFIRI方案用于大肠黏液腺癌辅助化疗的比较

刘山¹, 孟令新¹^,^†(

), 张可¹, 秦朝阳², 王刚平³, 孟芹¹, 丁兆军¹

^1. 276826　日照市人民医院肿瘤科
^2. 276826　日照市人民医院胃肠外科
^3. 276826　日照市人民医院病理科

收稿日期:2016-02-14 出版日期:2016-04-25
通信作者: 孟令新
基金资助:
济宁医学院面上项目(JY2013KY061)

Comparison of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma

Shan Liu¹, Lingxin Meng¹^,^†(), Ke Zhang¹, Zhaoyang Qin², Gangping Wang³, Qin Meng¹, Zhaojun Ding¹

^1. Department of Oncology, Rizhao People′s Hospital, Rizhao 276826, China
^2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Rizhao People′s Hospital, Rizhao 276826, China
^3. Department of Pathology, Rizhao People′s Hospital, Rizhao 276826, China

Received:2016-02-14 Published:2016-04-25
Corresponding author: Lingxin Meng
About author:
Corresponding author: Meng Lingxin, Email: menglx001623@163.com

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

引用本文：

刘山, 孟令新, 张可, 秦朝阳, 王刚平, 孟芹, 丁兆军. FOLFOX和FOLFIRI方案用于大肠黏液腺癌辅助化疗的比较[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2016, 05(02): 159-162.

Shan Liu, Lingxin Meng, Ke Zhang, Zhaoyang Qin, Gangping Wang, Qin Meng, Zhaojun Ding. Comparison of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2016, 05(02): 159-162.

目的

探讨FOLFOX及FOLFIRI方案在大肠黏液腺癌术后辅助化疗中的疗效差异。

方法

将40例术后病理证实为大肠黏液腺癌患者随机分为2组，实验组应用FOLFIRI方案化疗，对照组应用FOLFOX方案化疗。比较两组的无进展生存时间（progression free survival，PFS），并应用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存率统计分析。

结果

FOLFOX组的中位PFS为13个月，FOLFIRI组的中位PFS为18个月。FOLFIRI方案组PFS比FOLFOX方案组PFS长5个月，差异有统计学意义（χ²=4.294，P=0.038）。

结论

对于大肠黏液腺癌，术后应用FOLFIRI方案化疗比FOLFOX方案可延长PFS。

关键词: 结直肠肿瘤, 治疗, 粘液腺癌, 辅助化疗

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effect of FOLFOX regimen and FOLFIRI regimen in the treatment of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma after operation.

Methods

40 patients confirmed mucinous adenocarcinoma by surgery and pathology were divided randomly into two groups. Twenty patients (Group FOLFOX) were treated with oxaliplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil, while the other Twenty patients (Group FOLFIRI) were treated with irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil. The progression free survival (PFS) of two groups was compared. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The PFS of Group FOLFOX is 13 months, while the PFS of Group FOLFIRI is 18 months. Differences are statistically significant (χ²=4.294, P=0.038).

Conclusion

Colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma after operation treated with FOLFIRI regimen can prolong PFS than FOLFOX regimen.

Key words: Colorectal neoplasms, Therapy, Mucinous adenocarcinoma, Adjuvant chemotherapy

表1 两组病例资料构成比表

组别	性别		肠癌部位		术后病理分期
组别	男	女	直肠癌	结肠癌	II期	III期
FOLFOX组	14	6	16	4	4	16
FOLFIRI组	15	5	14	6	3	17
χ²	0.003		0.006		0.040
P值	0.72		1.00		0.68

表1 两组病例资料构成比表

组别	性别		肠癌部位		术后病理分期
组别	男	女	直肠癌	结肠癌	II期	III期
FOLFOX组	14	6	16	4	4	16
FOLFIRI组	15	5	14	6	3	17
χ²	0.003		0.006		0.040
P值	0.72		1.00		0.68

表2 两组大肠黏液腺癌患者无进展生存时间表（月）

FOLFOX组	PFS	6	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	19	20	21	24	30	32	?
FOLFOX组	例数	2	1	1	2	1	2	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	?
FOLFIRI组	PFS	9	11	12	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	25	29	33	36
FOLFIRI组	例数	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	3	1	2	1	1	1	2	1

表2 两组大肠黏液腺癌患者无进展生存时间表（月）

FOLFOX组	PFS	6	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	19	20	21	24	30	32	?
FOLFOX组	例数	2	1	1	2	1	2	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	?
FOLFIRI组	PFS	9	11	12	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	25	29	33	36
FOLFIRI组	例数	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	3	1	2	1	1	1	2	1

图1 两组患者无进展生存时间曲线图

[1]	Hyngstrom JR, Hu CY, Xing Y, et al. Clinicopathology and outcomes for mucinous and signet ring colorectal adenocarcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base.Ann Surg Oncol, 2012, 19(9): 2814-2821.
[2]	Hugen N, Verhoeven RH, Radema SA, et al. Prognosis and value of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III mucinous colorectal carcinoma.Ann Oncol, 2013, 24(11): 2819-2824.
[3]	Consorti F, Lorenzotti A, Midiri G, et al. Prognostic significance of mucinous carcinoma of colon and rectum: a prospective case-control study. J Surg Oncol, 2000, 73(2): 70-74.
[4]	Hyngstrom JR, Hu CY, Xing Y, et al. Clinicopathology and outcomes for mucinous and signet ring colorectal adenocarcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol, 2012, 19(9): 2814-2821.
[5]	Jivapaisarnpong P, Boonthongtho K.Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma in the colonand rectum in Rajavithi Hospital, Thailand.J Med Assoc Thai, 2011, 94(Suppl 2): S41-45.
[6]	Barresi V, Reggiani Bonetti L, Ieni A, et al. Prognostic significance of grading based on the counting of poorly differentiated clusters in colorectalmucinous adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol, 2015, 46(11): 1722-1729.
[7]	Zamir N, Ahmed S, Akhtar J. Mucinous adenocarcinoma of colon.APSP J Case Rep, 2010, 1(2): 20.
[8]	Catalano V, Loupakis F, Graziano F, et al. Prognosis of mucinous histology for patients with radically resected stage II and III colon cancer. Ann Oncol, 2012, 23(1): 135-141.
[9]	Kim SH, Shin SJ, Lee KY, et al. Prognostic value of mucinous histology depends on microsatellite instability status in patients with stage III coloncancer treated with adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013, 20(11): 3407-3413.
[10]	Negri FV, Wotherspoon A, Cunningham D, et al Norman AR. Mucinous histology predicts for reduced fluorouracil responsiveness and survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol, 2005, 16(8): 1305-1310.
[11]	Javier Martinez-Useros, Maria Rodriguez-Remirez, Aurea Borrero-Palacios, et al. DEK is a potential marker for aggressive phenotype and irinotecan-based therapy response in metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer, 2014, 14: 965.
[12]	Oberholzer K, Menig M, Kreft A, et al. Rectal cancer: mucinous carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging indicates poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012, 82(2): 842-848.
[13]	Cao Y, Jin ZX, Tong XP, et al. Synergistic effects of topoisomerase Iinhibitor, SN38, on Fas-mediated apoptosis. Anticancer Res, 2010, 30(10): 3911-3917.
[14]	Nöpel-Dünnebacke S, Schulmann K, Reinacher-Schick A, et al. Prognostic value of microsatellite instability and p53 expression in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Z Gastroenterol, 2014, 52(12): 1394-1401.

[1]	史学兵, 谢迎东, 谢霓, 徐超丽, 杨斌, 孙帼. 声辐射力弹性成像对不可切除肝细胞癌门静脉癌栓患者放射治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[2]	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.
[3]	李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[4]	徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[5]	陈浩, 王萌. 胃印戒细胞癌的临床病理特征及治疗选择的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 108-111.
[6]	梁孟杰, 朱欢欢, 王行舟, 江航, 艾世超, 孙锋, 宋鹏, 王萌, 刘颂, 夏雪峰, 杜峻峰, 傅双, 陆晓峰, 沈晓菲, 管文贤. 联合免疫治疗的胃癌转化治疗患者预后及术后并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 619-623.
[7]	刘柏隆, 周祥福. 压力性尿失禁阶梯治疗的项目介绍[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 125-125.
[8]	刘柏隆. 女性压力性尿失禁阶梯治疗之手术治疗方案选择[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 126-126.
[9]	中华医学会器官移植学分会. 肝移植术后缺血性胆道病变诊断与治疗中国实践指南[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 739-748.
[10]	陈伟杰, 何小东. 胆囊癌免疫靶向治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 763-768.
[11]	王秋生. 胆道良性疾病诊疗策略[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 779-782.
[12]	崔军威, 蔡华丽, 胡艺冰, 胡慧. 亚甲蓝联合金属定位夹及定位钩针标记在乳腺癌辅助化疗后评估腋窝转移淋巴结的临床应用价值探究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 625-632.
[13]	王誉英, 刘世伟, 王睿, 曾娅玲, 涂禧慧, 张蒲蓉. 老年乳腺癌新辅助治疗病理完全缓解的预测因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 641-646.
[14]	张平骥, 徐钰, 李天水, 庞文翼, 符师宁, 张梦圆. 重症患者镇静治疗现状及期望的调查研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 562-567.
[15]	王昌前, 林婷婷, 宁雨露, 王颖杰, 谭文勇. 光免疫治疗在肿瘤领域的临床应用新进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 575-583.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma