Copyright
©The Author(s) 1997.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 15, 1997; 3(4): 238-241
Published online Dec 15, 1997. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v3.i4.238
Published online Dec 15, 1997. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v3.i4.238
Table 1 General data of evaluable patients in Groups A and B
Parameter | Group A | Group B |
No. of cases | 47 | 46 |
Sex, M | 36 | 32 |
Sex, F | 11 | 14 |
Age (yr), -40 | 4 | 7 |
41-50 | 9 | 4 |
51-60 | 8 | 14 |
61-70 | 16 | 17 |
71-80 | 10 | 4 |
Performance status grade 1 | 1 | 0 |
Performance status grade 2 | 5 | 11 |
Performance status grade 3 | 5 | 5 |
Performance status grade 4 | 35 | 26 |
Unclear | 1 | 4 |
Histology | ||
Papillary adenocarcinoma | 3 | 1 |
Tubular adenocarcinoma 1 | 4 | 8 |
Tubular adenocarcinoma 2 | 17 | 12 |
Low differentiated adenocarcinoma | 13 | 8 |
Mucocellular carcinoma | 2 | 1 |
Signet ring cell carcinoma | 0 | 2 |
Others | 8 | 14 |
Table 2 Courses of treatment in Groups A and B patients
Groups | No. of courses | Total | |||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
Group A | 16 | 20 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 47 |
Group B | 8 | 23 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 46 |
Table 3 Data on partial remission cases
Case No. | Group | Sex | Age | Performance status | Pathohistology | No. of courses | Effective site |
22 | B | M | 54 | 4 | Tubular adenocarcinoma | 4 | Liver |
35 | B | M | 46 | 4 | Tubular adenocarcinoma | 3 | Stomach |
45 | B | M | 65 | 4 | Low differentiated adenocarcinoma | 7 | Liver |
67 | B | F | 60 | 4 | Low differentiated adenocarcinoma | 4 | Spleen |
71 | B | F | 66 | 3 | Tubular adenocarcinoma | 3 | Stomach |
82 | B | F | 72 | 2 | Low differentiated adenocarcinoma | 2 | Liver spleen |
83 | B | M | 74 | 4 | Tubular adenocarcinoma | 8 | Stomach |
100 | B | M | 65 | 4 | Tubular adenocarcinoma | 3 | Liver |
Table 4 Anti-tumor effect in Group A and B patients
Group | A | B |
Partial response (%) | 0 (0) | 8 (17.4) |
No change (moderate response) | 16 (1) | 17 (2) |
Progressive lesion | 31 | 21 |
95% reliability | 0, 6.2% | 6.4%, 28.4% |
Fisher’s test | P > 0.01 | P > 0.01 |
Median survival time | 108 d | 112 d |
Average course | 1.9 | 2.3 |
Table 5 Adverse effects in Group A and B patients
Group A | Group B | |||
Cases | % | Cases | % | |
Loss of appetite | 3 | 6.5 | 4 | 8.7 |
Nausea | 3 | 6.5 | 3 | 6.5 |
Vomiting | 9 | 19.6 | 8 | 17.4 |
Fatigue | 1 | 2.2 | 1 | 2.2 |
Muscular disability | 4 | 8.7 | 3 | 8.7 |
Alopecia | 4 | 8.7 | 3 | 6.5 |
Fever | 1 | 2.2 | 2 | 4.3 |
EKG abnormality | 1 | 2.2 | 1 | 2.2 |
Leukopenia | 2 | 4.3 | 5 | 10.9 |
Decrease of hemoglobin | 1 | 2.2 | 0 | 0.0 |
- Citation: Xiao SD, Li DH, Zhang DZ, Shen MJ, Zhu XT, He GF, Zhao TP, Li LP, Deng XC, Wang M, Wang XL, Chen Q, Zhang YP, Yao CL, Bao JG, Tong GW, Zhu LF, Jiang H, Minoru K. Multicenter randomized study on Me-CCNU, 5-FU and ADM vs ACNU, 5-FU and ADM for treatment of advanced gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 1997; 3(4): 238-241
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v3/i4/238.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v3.i4.238