| Literature DB >> 34899952 |
Xia Gao1, Qiuying Li2, Yanwen Qu3, Jinzhi Zhang2, Yougang Xing4, Shichun Li4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical efficacy of integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) in treating endometrial cancer and the influence on ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), tumor markers, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34899952 PMCID: PMC8660184 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6053406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Comparison of inflammatory factors levels between the two groups before and after treatment (compare with before treatment, P < 0.05; #compare with the control group, P < 0.05). (a) The comparison of IL-4 levels between the two groups before and after treatment. (b) The comparison of TNF-α levels between the two groups before and after treatment. (c) The comparison of hs-CRP levels between the two groups before and after treatment.
Comparison of the characteristics of transvaginal ultrasound images between the two groups of patients before treatment (n).
| Image characteristics | TCM + WM ( | WM ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | 0.110 | 0.740 | ||
| Irregularity | 47 | 45 | ||
| Agglomerate | 29 | 31 | ||
|
| ||||
| Boundary | 0.365 | 0.546 | ||
| Sharpness | 14 | 17 | ||
| Obscure | 62 | 59 | ||
|
| ||||
| Blood flow signal | 0.380 | 0.827 | ||
| No | 4 | 5 | ||
| Abundant | 51 | 53 | ||
| Not abundant | 21 | 18 | ||
|
| ||||
| Lesion diameter | 0.292 | 0.589 | ||
| ≥2 cm | 53 | 56 | ||
| <2 cm | 23 | 20 | ||
|
| ||||
| RI | 0.468 | 0.494 | ||
| ≤0.4 | 48 | 52 | ||
| >0.4 | 28 | 24 | ||
|
| ||||
| Echo | 0.249 | 0.618 | ||
| Low | 45 | 48 | ||
| Uneven | 31 | 28 | ||
|
| ||||
| Intimal thickness | 0.128 | 0.721 | ||
| ≥1.5 cm | 55 | 53 | ||
| <1.5 cm | 21 | 23 | ||
|
| ||||
| Muscle infiltration | 0.272 | 0.873 | ||
| None | 5 | 6 | ||
| Shallow | 32 | 34 | ||
| Deep | 39 | 36 | ||
Comparison of characteristics of transvaginal ultrasound images between the two groups after treatment (n).
| Image characteristics | TCM + WM ( | WM ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | 10.125 | 0.006 | ||
| No | 32 | 14 | ||
| Irregularity | 27 | 39 | ||
| Agglomerate | 17 | 23 | ||
|
| ||||
| Boundary | 6.779 | 0.009 | ||
| Sharpness | 49 | 33 | ||
| Obscure | 27 | 43 | ||
|
| ||||
| Blood flow signal | 6.657 | 0.036 | ||
| No | 37 | 22 | ||
| Abundant | 28 | 42 | ||
| Not abundant | 11 | 12 | ||
|
| ||||
| Lesion diameter | 12.440 | 0.002 | ||
| No | 32 | 14 | ||
| ≥2 cm | 28 | 48 | ||
| <2 cm | 16 | 14 | ||
|
| ||||
| RI | 13.633 | <0.001 | ||
| ≤0.4 | 12 | 32 | ||
| >0.4 | 64 | 44 | ||
|
| ||||
| Echo | 16.067 | <0.001 | ||
| Low | 16 | 39 | ||
| Uneven | 26 | 20 | ||
| High | 34 | 17 | ||
|
| ||||
| Intimal thickness | 6.410 | 0.011 | ||
| ≥1.5 cm | 20 | 35 | ||
| <1.5 cm | 56 | 41 | ||
|
| ||||
| Muscle infiltration | 7.916 | 0.019 | ||
| None | 39 | 22 | ||
| Shallow | 18 | 26 | ||
| Deep | 19 | 28 | ||
Comparison of MRI image features between the two groups before treatment (n).
| Image characteristics | TCM + WM ( | WM ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion diameter | 0.032 | 0.857 | ||
| ≥2 cm | 55 | 54 | ||
| <2 cm | 21 | 22 | ||
|
| ||||
| Echo | 0.256 | 0.613 | ||
| Low | 47 | 50 | ||
| Uneven | 29 | 26 | ||
|
| ||||
| Boundary | 0.158 | 0.691 | ||
| Sharpness | 17 | 15 | ||
| Obscure | 59 | 61 | ||
|
| ||||
| Shape | 0.452 | 0.501 | ||
| Irregularity | 50 | 46 | ||
| Agglomerate | 26 | 30 | ||
|
| ||||
| Composition | 0.106 | 0.744 | ||
| Solid | 35 | 33 | ||
| Cystic | 41 | 43 | ||
|
| ||||
| Enhancement degree | 0.778 | 0.678 | ||
| No | 2 | 3 | ||
| Slightly | 18 | 14 | ||
| Obviously | 56 | 59 | ||
Comparison of MRI image features between the two groups after treatment (n).
| Image characteristics | TCM + WM ( | WM ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion diameter | 6.147 | 0.046 | ||
| No | 30 | 16 | ||
| ≥2 cm | 33 | 42 | ||
| <2 cm | 13 | 18 | ||
|
| ||||
| Echo | 6.531 | 0.038 | ||
| Low | 27 | 36 | ||
| Uneven | 15 | 21 | ||
| High | 34 | 19 | ||
|
| ||||
| Boundary | 8.622 | 0.003 | ||
| Sharpness | 51 | 33 | ||
| Obscure | 25 | 43 | ||
|
| ||||
| Shape | 8.927 | 0.012 | ||
| No | 30 | 16 | ||
| Irregularity | 24 | 41 | ||
| Agglomerate | 22 | 19 | ||
|
| ||||
| Composition | 7.097 | 0.029 | ||
| No | 30 | 16 | ||
| Solid | 17 | 28 | ||
| Cystic | 29 | 32 | ||
|
| ||||
| Enhancement degree | 7.647 | 0.022 | ||
| No | 33 | 20 | ||
| Slightly | 12 | 8 | ||
| Obviously | 31 | 48 | ||
Figure 2Comparison of serum (CA125 and HE4) expression levels between the two groups before and after treatment. (a) The comparison of serum CA125 expression levels between the two groups before and after treatment. (b) The comparison of HE4 expression levels between the two groups before and after treatment.
Comparison of the occurrence of toxicities and side effects between the two groups.
| Group | Myelosuppression | Abnormal renal and liver function | Decreased platelet number | Gastrointestinal reactions | Leukopenia | Cardiotoxicity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCM + WM | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.95) | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.32) | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.95) |
| WM | 7 (9.21) | 9 (11.84) | 9 (11.84) | 10 (13.16) | 11 (14.47) | 8 (10.53) |
Figure 3Comparison of 3-year cumulative survival rates between the two groups.