| Literature DB >> 35035510 |
Qiannan Zhao1, Juanjuan Liu2, Sai Wang3, Xiuqin Wang4, Xiufang Jiang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the clinical efficacy of chemotherapy combined with traditional Chinese medicine in patients with cervical cancer and its effect on cellular immunoglobulin, serum sugar chain antigen 125 (CA125), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35035510 PMCID: PMC8759920 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7728739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of general clinical data between the two groups of patients (n).
| Features | Observation ( | Control ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 54.36 ± 10.03 | 52.91 ± 9.67 |
| Course of disease (years) | 2.6 ± 0.7 | 2.4 ± 0.8 |
| The pathologic types | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 30 (76.9%) | 32 (82.0%) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 6 (15.4%) | 5 (12.8%) |
| Gland scale cancer | 3 (7.7%) | 2 (2.2%) |
| Stage | ||
| II A | 7 (18.0%) | 6 (15.4%) |
| II B | 11 (28.2%) | 12 (30.8%) |
| III A | 10 (25.6%) | 10 (25.6%) |
| III B | 11 (28.2%) | 11 (28.2%) |
Comparison of short-term efficacy between the two groups of patients (n (%)).
| Indicators | Observation | Control |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CR | 11 (28.2%) | 9 (23.1%) | 0.152 |
| PR | 24 (61.5%) | 25 (64.1%) | |
| SD | 3 (7.7%) | 4 (10.2%) | |
| PD | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | |
| ORR | 35/39 (89.7%) | 34/39 (87.2%) |
Figure 1Comparison of serum tumor marker levels before and after treatment in the two groups. (a–c) CA125, CEA, and TNF-α levels were compared between two groups of patients (n = 39). P < 0.05.
Comparison of immune function between the two groups.
| Group | Time | CD4+ | CD8+ | CD4+/CD8+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | Before treatment | 27.35 ± 5.43 | 29.03 ± 6.10 | 0.99 ± 0.31 |
| After treatment | 30.21 ± 5.03 | 25.76 ± 4.71 | 1.21 ± 0.30 | |
|
| ||||
| Control | Before treatment | 27.78 ± 5.21 | 29.51 ± 6.32 | 0.98 ± 0.31 |
| After treatment | 28.98 ± 4.86 | 27.63 ± 5.77 | 1.05 ± 0.29 | |
Before and after treatment, P < 0.05; compared with the control group, #P < 0.05.
Comparison of serum immunoglobulin levels between the two groups (g/L).
| Group | Time | IgG | IgA | IgM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Before treatment | 11.03 ± 1.99 | 1.65 ± 1.16 | 1.39 ± 0.72 |
| After treatment | 14.37 ± 2.17 | 2.07 ± 0.97 | 1.64 ± 0.73 | |
|
| ||||
| Observation | Before treatment | 11.23 ± 2.11 | 1.70 ± 1.21 | 1.42 ± 0.75 |
| After treatment | 17.03 ± 2.74 | 2.67 ± 0.78 | 1.93 ± 0.83 | |
Compared with the control group after treatment, P < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups. (a) Comparison of serum toxicity and side effects between the two groups (%, n = 39). (b) The occurrence of clinical toxic and side effects compared between the two groups of patients (%, n = 39). P < 0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of life quality scores between the two groups (n = 39). P < 0.05.