| Literature DB >> 36185093 |
Lingling Lv1, Xiaoheng Shen1, Jun Zhang2, Qiong Li1, Junwei Wu2, Yuan Wu1, Jingxian Chen1, Wenhua Zhu1, Lan Zheng1.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Fuzheng Xiaoji granule in patients with stage IIIC colorectal cancer.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36185093 PMCID: PMC9519349 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4618342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Experimental study flowchart.
Basic characteristics of patients.
| Characteristic | Control group ( | Treatment group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | — | — | — |
| Male | 37 (74%) | 64 (64%) | 0.218 |
| Female | 13 (26%) | 36 (36%) | — |
|
| |||
| Age, years | — | — | — |
| Mean ± SD | 63.14 ± 12.45 | 63.30 ± 12.90 | 0.942 |
|
| |||
| Primary site | — | — | — |
| Colon | 43 (86%) | 78 (78%) | 0.242 |
| Rectum | 7 (14%) | 22 (22%) | — |
|
| |||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | — | — | — |
| XELOX | 43 (86%) | 91 (91%) | 0.350 |
| FOLFOX | 7 (14%) | 9 (9%) | — |
|
| |||
| ECOG performance status | — | — | — |
| 0 | 19 (38%) | 29 (29%) | 0.060 |
| 1 | 25 (50%) | 67 (67%) | — |
| 2 | 6 (12%) | 4 (4%) | — |
Number of relapse and metastases and DFS in both groups.
| Group |
| Relapse and metastases | DFS |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 50 | 9 (18%) | 34.37 ± 2.91 | 0.029 |
| Treatment group | 100 | 10 (10%) | 37.0 ± 1.08 |
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier curve for DFS.
Comparison of TCM symptom score within and between the groups.
| TCM symptom | Control group | Treatment group |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | After treatment | |
| Fatigue | 2.26 ± 0.69 | 1.36 ± 0.80 | 2.25 ± 0.80 | 0.99 ± 0.82 | 0.01 |
| Emotional depression | 1.9 ± 0.79 | 1.68 ± 0.77 | 1.97 ± 0.78 | 1.09 ± 0.96 | 0.005 |
| Chest tightness | 1.64 ± 0.85 | 1.18 ± 0.8 | 1.73 ± 0.84 | 1 ± 0.86 | 0.22 |
| Insomnia | 1.22 ± 0.82 | 1 ± 0.7 | 1.42 ± 0.96 | 0.92 ± 0.79 | 0.544 |
| Anorexia | 1.54 ± 0.93 | 1.12 ± 0.96 | 1.48 ± 0.96 | 0.65 ± 0.73 | 0.001 |
| Abdominal distension | 1.76 ± 0.85 | 0.96 ± 0.81 | 1.73 ± 0.81 | 0.63 ± 0.74 | 0.013 |
| Abdominal pain | 1.3 ± 1.02 | 1.02 ± 0.74 | 1.46 ± 0.98 | 1.12 ± 0.82 | 0.469 |
| Soreness and weakness in the waist and legs | 1.2 ± 1.05 | 1 ± 0.90 | 1.25 ± 1.04 | 0.67 ± 0.75 | 0.013 |
| Chills | 1.86 ± 0.78 | 0.98 ± 0.99 | 1.83 ± 0.91 | 1.03 ± 0.9 | 0.758 |
| Dysphoria in the chest, palm, and soles | 1.66 ± 0.85 | 1.08 ± 0.78 | 1.65 ± 0.87 | 1.01 ± 0.82 | 0.618 |
Figure 3Comparison of TCM symptom score between the groups. The left graph shows the results before treatment, and the right graph shows the results after treatment.
Effective rate of TCM symptoms of the patients in both groups after treatment.
| Group |
| Significantly effective | Effective | Ineffective |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 50 | 4 (8%) | 21 (42%) | 25 (50%) | 0.009 |
| Treatment group | 100 | 24 (24%) | 47 (47%) | 29 (29%) |
Figure 4Effective rate of TCM symptoms of the patients in both groups after treatment.