| Literature DB >> 34795788 |
Shisheng Zhou1, Xia Fan2, Xiaojie Du3, Shuang Liu4, Hongmei Sun5, Yan Zhang6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect of Xiaozheng Decoction combined with bladder perfusion with hydroxycamptothecin in the treatment of bladder cancer.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34795788 PMCID: PMC8594995 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7178414
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of short-term efficacy evaluation between the two groups.
| Group | Complete remission | Partial remission | Stable | Progress | Total effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 3(6.52) | 13(28.26) | 15(32.61) | 15(32.61) | 67.39 |
| Observation group | 12(26.09) | 17(36.96) | 16(34.78) | 4(8.70) | 91.30 |
Comparison of serum-related factors between the two groups before and after treatment.
| Project | Observation group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| ICAM-1 (ng/L) | 75.98 ± 17.11 | 35.03 ± 6.22 | 75.73 ± 17.88 | 47.14 ± 9.03 |
| E-cadherin (ng/L) | 76.90 ± 13.78 | 37.02 ± 5.34 | 77.02 ± 14.01 | 64.22 ± 5.52 |
| CAM (ng/L) | 21.54 ± 3.85 | 71.30 ± 13.64 | 21.67 ± 4.12 | 38.71 ± 8.09 |
| FGF (pg/L) | 26.14 ± 6.72 | 7.73 ± 2.75 | 26.34 ± 7.00 | 13.66 ± 3.23 |
| VEGF-a ( | 196.32 ± 26.24 | 82.37 ± 5.07 | 197.21 ± 27.33 | 162.87 ± 14.28 |
| VEGF-b ( | 126.45 ± 16.02 | 105.98 ± 12.73 | 126.08 ± 16.21 | 65.63 ± 3.79 |
| VEGF-c ( | 151.35 ± 13.03 | 123.96 ± 7.33 | 151.12 ± 13.22 | 71.99 ± 6.93 |
p < 0.05 versus after treatment; #p < 0.05 versus the control group.
Comparison of white blood cell suppression grades between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group |
| I | II | III | IV | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 46 | 8(17.39) | 2(4.35) | 1(2.17) | 0(0.00) | 11(23.91) |
| Control group | 46 | 13(28.26) | 8(17.39) | 4(8.69) | 2(4.35) | 27(58.70) |
Figure 1Comparison of the number of WBC between the two groups of patients before and after treatment. p < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of immune function indexes between the two groups before and after treatment. p < 0.05 versus after treatment; #p < 0.05 versus control group.
Comparison of serum VEGF levels between the two groups before and after treatment.
| Group | Before treatment | Three months after treatment | Six months after treatment | Twelve months after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 388.5 ± 98.4 | 346.3 ± 114.4 | 349.7 ± 110.8 | 308.2 ± 152.8 |
| Control group | 389.7 ± 99.7 | 378.9 ± 130.7 | 388.7 ± 102.6 | 356.3 ± 159.2 |
|
| 0.597 | 1.598 | 2.445 | 2.014 |
|
| 0.551 | 0.097 | 0.021 | 0.049 |
Figure 3Comparison of efficacy in the recurrence rate of bladder tumor between the two groups.
Comparison of contrast ultrasonography parameters of recurrent and nonrecurrent bladder cancer patients in the observation group.
| Group | Cases | AT (s) | TTP (s) | PI (dB) | WT (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relapsed patients | 3 | 21.6 ± 1.5 | 30.9 ± 2.4 | 22.0 ± 12.2 | 36.7 ± 10.3 |
| Nonrelapsed patients | 43 | 22.0 ± 1.7 | 29.1 ± 1.8 | 14.9 ± 8.9 | 21.9 ± 8.1 |
Figure 4Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups.