| Literature DB >> 34925532 |
Wei Ding1, Xiaoyan Li1, Baojun Ji2, Zhenna Wang3.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is a common malignant neoplasm in women, and its incidence is increasing year by year. This study explored the effects of traditional Chinese medicine combined with recombinant human interferon α2b in cervical cancer patients. 178 cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) combined with high-risk HPV-positive patients from June 2017 to August 2020 were divided into the study group (n = 89 cases) and the control group (n = 89 cases) by the random number table method. Patients in the control group were treated with recombinant human interferon α2b, and the study group was treated with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) on the basis of the control group. After treatment, the recurrence rate in the study group was significantly decreased while the human papillomavirus (HPV) negative conversion rate was significantly increased. 3 months after treatment, the TCM symptom scores in the study group were lower than in the control group. Moreover, serum levels of inflammatory factors decreased in both groups, and the decrease was more significant in the study group. After treatment, the ultrasound parameters were significantly decreased in the study group than in the control group. In conclusion, traditional Chinese medicine combined with recombinant human interferon α2b in cervical cancer patients could effectively improve the negative conversion rate of HPV infection, the level of inflammatory factors, reduce the degree of cervical erosion, and enhance the immunity of patients with high safety and significantly improve the quality of life.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34925532 PMCID: PMC8677392 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6881720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of therapeutic approach.
Figure 2HPV conversion rate after treatment in both groups (∗P < 0.05).
Figure 3HPV recurrence rate after follow-up in both groups (P < 0.01).
Comparison of TCM symptom scores between the two groups ( ± s).
| Symptoms | Study group | Control group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 2.51 ± 0.32 | 2.53 ± 0.34 | 0.227 | >0.05 |
| 3 months after treatment | 0.65 ± 0.14 | 1.76 ± 0.22 | 4.652 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 2.57 ± 0.26 | 2.54 ± 0.31 | 0.346 | >0.05 |
| 3 months after treatment | 0.71 ± 0.18 | 1.63 ± 0.27 | 10.371 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 2.43 ± 0.48 | 2.45 ± 0.52 | 0.732 | >0.05 |
| 3 months after treatment | 0.96 ± 0.11 | 1.72 ± 0.34 | 7.611 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 2.46 ± 0.34 | 2.44 ± 0.35 | 0.546 | >0.05 |
| 3 months after treatment | 0.83 ± 0.16 | 1.68 ± 0.23 | 6.230 | <0.05 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 2.37 ± 0.58 | 2.34 ± 0.56 | 0.934 | >0.05 |
| 3 months after treatment | 0.74 ± 0.17 | 1.65 ± 0.29 | 12.456 | <0.05 |
Figure 4Comparison of inflammatory factor levels before and after treatment in two groups. (a) The comparison of IL-2 levels before and after treatment in two groups; (b) the comparison of IL-6 levels before and after treatment in two groups; (c) the comparison of IL-10 levels before and after treatment in two groups; (d) the comparison of TNF-α levels before and after treatment in two groups. P < 0.05.
Comparison of ultrasound parameters of cervical lesions before and after treatment.
| Index | Study group ( | Control group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| T1(s) | 13.673 | 10.357 | 13.224 | 12.253 |
| T2(s) | 15.894 | 16.861 | 15.978 | 16.249 |
| T3(s) | 33.146 | 27.462 | 33.317 | 30.175 |
| Max intensity(dB) | 213.678 | 116.894 | 215.266 | 131.246 |
| Area | 18237.662 | 13798.519 | 18368.143 | 16037.030 |
| Slope1 | 9.774 | 5.792 | 9.681 | 7.234 |
| Slope2 | −2.253 | −2.015 | −2.287 | −2.071 |
| Slope3 | −0.414 | −0.322 | −0.426 | −0.353 |
P < 0.05: before treatment vs. after treatment. △P < 0.05: study group vs. control group.
Figure 5Comparison of immune function before and after treatment between the two groups. (a) The comparison of CD3+ levels before and after treatment between the two groups; (b) the comparison of CD4+ levels before and after treatment between the two groups; (c) the comparison of CD8+ levels before and after treatment between the two groups; (d) the comparison of CD4+/CD8+ levels before and after treatment between the two groups. P < 0.05.
Comparison of pain levels and quality of life before and after treatment between two groups of patients.
| Index | Study group | Control group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS score | Before treatment | 6.23 ± 1.67 | 6.17 ± 1.53 | 0.217 | >0.05 |
| After treatment | 1.96 ± 0.52 | 3.68 ± 0.93 | 6.431 | <0.05 | |
|
| |||||
| SF-36 score | Before treatment | 44.23 ± 6.74 | 43.67 ± 6.52 | 0.933 | >0.05 |
| Before treatment | 78.63 ± 9.56 | 61.71 ± 8.67 | 7.249 | <0.05 | |
Comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions after treatment in the two groups (n (%)).
| Group |
| Increased secretion | Vaginal itching | Vulvar pain | Nausea and vomiting | Liver and kidney abnormalities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | 89 | 4(4.5) | 1(1.1) | 2(2.2) | 2(2.2) | 1(1.1) |
| Control group | 89 | 7(7.9) | 2(2.2) | 4(4.5) | 5(5.6) | 3(3.4) |
|
| 0.230 | |||||
|
| 0.994 |