Efficacy and safety of integrated Chinese and Western medicine in advanced pancreatic cancer: A double-center retrospective cohort study

Table 1 Patient characteristics, n (%)

Characteristics	Integration of Chinese and Western medicine group (n = 66)	Western medicine group (n = 70)	χ2	P value
Gender			0.002	0.968
Female	29 (43.9)	31 (44.3)
Male	37 (56.1)	39 (55.7)
Age (years)			0.485	0.486
< 65	36 (54.5)	34 (48.6)
≥ 65	30 (45.5)	36 (51.4)
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status			2.483	0.115
0 and 1	45 (68.2)	56 (80.0)
2	21 (31.8)	14 (20.0)
Histological type			0.709	0.400
Ductal adenocarcinoma	62 (93.9)	63 (90.0)
Other	4 (6.1)	7 (10.0)
Differentiation grade			2.566	0.277
Poorly differentiated	50 (75.8)	46 (65.7)
Moderately differentiated	15 (22.7)	20 (28.6)
Well differentiated	1 (1.5)	4 (5.7)
Primary site			5.005	0.171
Head of pancreas	36 (54.5)	51 (72.9)
Body of pancreas	4 (6.1)	3 (4.3)
Tail of pancreas	11 (16.7)	7 (10.0)
Mixed	15 (22.7)	9 (12.9)
TNM stage			0.636	0.425
Stage III	11 (16.7)	12 (17.1)
Stage IV	55 (83.3)	58 (82.9)
Ascites presence
Present	8 (12.1)	8 (11.4)
Absent	58 (87.9)	62 (88.6)
Hepatic impairment
Present	39 (59.1)	46 (65.7)
Absent	27 (40.9)	24 (34.3)
Treatment regimen			6.464	0.167
Chemotherapy	48 (72.7)	50 (71.4)
Chemotherapy plus targeted therapy	4 (6.1)	2 (2.9)
Chemotherapy plus immunotherapy	1 (1.5)	8 (11.4)
Radiofrequency ablation	6 (9.1)	5 (7.1)
Radioactive seed implantation brachytherapy	7 (10.6)	5 (7.1)

Table 2 Comparison of the short-term efficacy in 136 cases of advanced pancreatic cancer, n (%)

Group	Complete response	Partial response	Stable disease	Progressive disease	Disease control rate	Objective response rate
Integration of Chinese and Western medicine group (n = 66)	0 (0.0)	14 (21.2)	48 (72.7)	4 (6.1)	62 (93.9)a	14 (21.2)
Western medicine group (n = 70)	0 (0.0)	15 (21.4)	45 (63.3)	10 (14.3)	58 (82.9)	15 (21.4)

^aP < 0.05 indicates a significant difference in intergroup comparison.

Table 3 Comparison of tumor markers before and after treatment in the two groups, median (interquartile ranges)

Group	Time	CA199 (U/mL)	CA125 (U/mL)	CEA (ng/mL)
Integration of Chinese and Western medicine group (n = 66)	Before treatment	853.31 (20.70, 8560.03)	55.90 (24.90, 252.70)	5.67 (2.59, 18.83)
	After treatment	317.95 (28.35, 5593.16)a	47.50 (16.80, 169.10)a	6.94 (3.40, 21.81)
Western medicine group (n = 70)	Before treatment	455.29 (55.77, 2722.84)	66.12 (23.67, 150.46)	6.16 (3.30, 24.10)
	After treatment	628.21 (42.18, 1902.00)a	67.65 (20.43, 200.30)	8.81 (4.08, 28.38)

^aP < 0.05 indicates a significant difference in intragroup comparison.

CA: Carbohydrate antigen; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 4 Comparison of immune function between the two groups before and after treatment, mean ± SD

Group	Time	CD3+ (%)	CD4+ (%)	CD4+/CD8+	NK (%)
Integration of Chinese and Western medicine group (n = 66)	Before treatment	58.02 ± 4.48	35.01 ± 3.81	1.14 ± 0.13	5.85 ± 1.57a
	After treatment	69.98 ± 8.01a,b	45.02 ± 3.47a,b	1.83 ± 0.79a,b	17.44 ± 3.68a,b
Western medicine group (n = 70)	Before treatment	58.71 ± 3.45	36.31 ± 3.84	1.17 ± 0.97	7.85 ± 0.97
	After treatment	64.07 ± 4.47a	38.95 ± 4.57a	1.48 ± 0.11a	14.94 ± 0.43a

^aP < 0.05, for intragroup comparisons.

^bP < 0.05, for intergroup comparisons.

NK: Natural killer.

Table 5 Comparison of safety outcomes between the two groups, n (%)

Group	Myelosuppression				Hepatic impairment				Renal impairment
	Grade I	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV	Grade I	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV	Grade I	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV
Integration of Chinese and Western medicine group (n = 66)	30	14	6	1	12	5	7	1	2	1	0	0
Western medicine group (n = 70)	30	21	12	3	12	5	8	0	1	1	0	0
P value	0.003				0.890						0.631