国际妇产科学杂志 ›› 2013, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (1): 84-88.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

宫颈癌根治术后辅助放化疗有效性和安全性的Meta分析

芦 芸, 毕学汉, 杨永秀   

  1. 730000 兰州大学第一医院妇产科(芦 芸,毕学汉,杨永秀);兰州大学第一临床医学院(芦 芸)
  • 收稿日期:1900-01-01 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2013-02-15 发布日期:2013-02-15
  • 通讯作者: 杨永秀

The Efficiency and Safety of Postoperative Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Cervical Cancer: a Meta-analysis

LU Yun, BI Xue-han,YANG Yong-xiu   

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China(LU Yun, BI Xue-han,YANG Yong-xiu);The First Clinical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China(LU Yun)
  • Received:1900-01-01 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2013-02-15 Online:2013-02-15
  • Contact: YANG Yong-xiu

摘要: 目的:评价宫颈癌根治术(即广泛性子宫切除+盆腔淋巴结切除术)后同步放化疗(concurrent chemoradiotherapy,CCRT)和单纯放疗(radiotherapy,RT)的有效性和安全性。方法:制定详细的检索策略,检索VIP、CNKI、CBM、万方数据库、PubMed、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library中的相关文献,纳入相关研究,2名研究者背对背独立提取有效数据,应用RevMan 5.1.1软件进行Meta分析。结果:最终纳入8篇文献,包括892例患者。Meta分析结果显示:宫颈癌根治术后CCRT组3年无瘤生存率高于RT组,差异有统计学意义(RR=1.22, 95% CI:1.04~1.44,P=0.01);盆腔复发率低于RT组(RR=0.50, 95%CI :0.36~0.69,P<0.000 1);远处转移率低于RT组(RR=0.66, 95%CI:0.48~0.91,P=0.01);放射性膀胱炎(RR=1.26, 95% CI:1.01~1.58, P=0.04)、骨髓抑制(RR=2.30,95% CI:1.67~3.15,P<0.000 01)、胃肠道反应(RR=1.55,95% CI:1.20~2.02,P=0.001)的发生率均高于RT组;5年总生存率(RR=1.24, 95% CI:0.98~1.56,P=0.07)、放射性直肠炎的发生率(RR=1.01,95% CI:0.83~1.23,P=0.91)差异无统计学意义。结论:宫颈癌根治术后CCRT能够显著提高3年无瘤生存率,降低盆腔复发率和远处转移率,但放射性膀胱炎、骨髓抑制、胃肠道反应的发生率增高。临床选择宫颈癌根治术后辅助治疗方案时应综合患者的情况全面考虑,发生不良反应时应及时对症处理。

关键词: 宫颈肿瘤, 手术后期间, 综合疗法, 放射疗法, 药物疗法, Meta分析(主题)

Abstract: Objective:To evaluate the efficiency and safety of postoperative adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy(CCRT) and radiotherapy(RT) alone in cervical cancer. Methods:By searching VIP, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang database, PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library,the studies were included if they are accord with inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently and data were analyzed using RevMan 5.1.1. Results:8 studies were included with a total of 892 patients. Meta-analysis results are as follows: CCRT group 3-years disease-free survival rate(RR=1.22, 95%CI:1.04-1.44, P=0.01), the incidence of radioactive cystitis(RR=1.26, 95%CI:1.01-1.58, P=0.04), bone marrow suppression(RR=2.30, 95% CI:1.67-3.15, P<0.000 01) and gastrointestinal reaction(RR=1.55, 95% CI:1.20-2.02, P=0.001) are higher than the RT group, while pelvic recurrence (RR=0.50, 95%CI:0.36-0.69, P<0.000 1) and distant metastasis(RR=0.66, 95%CI:0.48-0.91, P=0.01) lower than the RT group, the difference have statistical significance. However, there were no statistically differences on the 5-years over-all survival(RR=1.24, 95%CI:0.98-1.56, P=0.07) and radiation proctitis(RR=1.01, 95%CI:0.83-1.23,P=0.91). Conclusions:Compared with CCRT and alone RT in cervical cancer. The former can significantly improve the 3-years disease-free survival, decrease the pelvic recurrence and distant metastasis, while it can increase radiation cystitis, bone marrow suppression and gastrointestinal reactions. It should be take patients’ condition into account when treatment measure was selected by clinical physicians. Simultaneously, the adverse reactions which associated with CCRT should be treated timely.

Key words: Uterine cervical neoplasms, Postoperative period, Combined modality therapy, Radiotherapy, Drug therapy, Meta-analysis as topic