| Literature DB >> 35402612 |
Dan Jiang1, Fengying Xiao2, Lihua Liu3, Zhen Meng4, Chengwei Zhang5.
Abstract
Objective: To prospectively study the application effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) anticancer decoction with basic chemotherapy and nursing intervention on oral cancer patients after surgery and the effect on tumor markers and immune function.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35402612 PMCID: PMC8986392 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6341381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Comparison of general data between the two groups.
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.449 | >0.05 | ||
| Male | 27 | 24 | ||
| Female | 15 | 18 | ||
| Age (years) | 0.194 | >0.05 | ||
| >60 | 23 | 25 | ||
| ≤60 | 19 | 17 | ||
| Degree of education | 0.192 | >0.05 | ||
| High school and below | 22 | 24 | ||
| College and above | 20 | 18 | ||
| Betel nut | 0.094 | >0.05 | ||
| Yes | 28 | 30 | ||
| No | 14 | 13 | ||
| Cigarettes | 0.283 | >0.05 | ||
| Yes | 34 | 32 | ||
| No | 8 | 10 | ||
| Alcohol | 0.664 | >0.05 | ||
| Yes | 35 | 32 | ||
| No | 7 | 10 | ||
| Disease type | 0.501 | >0.05 | ||
| Tongue cancer | 21 | 20 | ||
| Gingival carcinoma | 13 | 15 | ||
| Palate cancer | 6 | 6 | ||
| Cheilocarcinoma | 2 | 1 | ||
| ASA | 0.297 | >0.05 | ||
| I | 11 | 13 | ||
| II | 26 | 25 | ||
| III | 5 | 4 |
Comparison of oral nursing effect between the two groups.
| Grade | Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleanliness of oral cavity | 7.863 | <0.05 | ||
| I | 2 | 11 | ||
| II | 16 | 15 | ||
| III | 24 | 16 | ||
| Frequency of sputum suction | 6.992 | <0.05 | ||
| More | 7 | 17 | ||
| Medium | 16 | 15 | ||
| Less | 19 | 10 | ||
| Oral comfort | 6.424 | <0.05 | ||
| Good | 22 | 11 | ||
| Better | 14 | 19 | ||
| Average | 6 | 12 |
Figure 1Comparison of immune function between the two groups before and after nursing (∗compared with before nursing, P < 0.05; #compared with the control group, P < 0.05). (a) The comparison of CD4+ level between the two groups before and after nursing. (b) The comparison of CD8+ levels between the two groups before and after nursing. (c) The comparison of CD56+ level between the two groups before and after nursing. (d) The comparison of CD4+/CD8+ between the two groups before and after nursing.
Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups.
| Group |
| Halitosis | Oral fungal infections | Leukopenia | Gastrointestinal reactions | Fever |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 42 | 3 (7.14) | 3 (7.14) | 2 (4.76) | 4 (8.52) | 3 (7.14) |
| Control group | 42 | 11 (26.19) | 9 (21.43) | 8 (19.05) | 11 (26.19) | 6 (14.29) |
|
| 6.903 | 6.134 | 5.773 | 7.624 | 5.714 | |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups.
| Group |
| Very satisfied | Satisfied | Unsatisfied | Degree of satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 42 | 23 | 17 | 2 | 42 (95.24) |
| Control group | 42 | 12 | 21 | 9 | 33 (78.57) |
Figure 2Comparison of tumor marker levels between the two groups before and after nursing (∗compared with before nursing, P < 0.05; #compared with the control group, P < 0.05). (a) The comparison of CEA levels between the two groups before and after nursing. (b) The comparison of NSE levels between the two groups before and after nursing. (c) The comparison of CA19-9 levels between the two groups before and after nursing.
Comparison of postoperative VAS and QoR40 scores between the two groups of patients ().
| Group | VAS score | QoR40 score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before nursing | After nursing | Before nursing | After nursing | |
| Observation group ( | 4.64 ± 1.37 | 8.41 ± 0.76 | 91.27 ± 23.55 | 173.14 ± 18.52 |
| Control group ( | 4.58 ± 1.42 | 6.34 ± 1.03 | 93.46 ± 22.63 | 132.68 ± 20.04 |
|
| 1.623 | 5.798 | 2.152 | 11.663 |
|
| >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups ().
| Group | Material state | Social function | Mental function | Physical function |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group ( | 57.83 ± 6.71 | 61.58 ± 5.42 | 59.26 ± 7.92 | 64.14 ± 5.73 |
| 84.22 ± 6.29 | 88.65 ± 6.77 | 87.97 ± 6.49 | 86.36 ± 5.67 | |
| Control group ( | 58.26 ± 6.57 | 62.14 ± 5.83 | 59.64 ± 7.58 | 64.82 ± 5.42 |
| 71.45 ± 6.32 | 73.48 ± 6.53 | 72.87 ± 6.62 | 72.86 ± 5.27 | |
|
| 7.633 | 8.842 | 7.964 | 9.721 |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Figure 3Comparison of two-year cumulative survival rates between the two groups.