4.4 Article

Effect of Xiaoaiping injection on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 34-38

Publisher

JOURNAL TRADITIONAL CHINESE MED
DOI: 10.1016/S0254-6272(13)60097-7

Keywords

Carcinoma; hepatocellular; Karnofsky performance status; Disase-free survival; Xiaoaiping injection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of Xiaoaiping Injection (XAP) on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with advanced HCC were assigned to a control group of 36 and a treatment group of 32. The control group was treated with best supportive treatment (BST) and the treatment group was given XAP plus BST. XAP was administered daily by iv and the treatment course was lasted for 30 days for both groups. The immediate therapeutic efficacy, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores, and the changes in immunity indicators (CD3(+), CD4(+) and CD8(+)T cells) were measured and compared before and after treatment. The progression-free survival (PFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate in the 2 groups were analyzed. RESULTS: The immediate therapeutic efficacy and KPS of the treatment group were better than those in the control group (P<0.05). Patients in the treatment group had higher percentages of CD3 and CD4 T-lymphocytes in peripheral blood than those in the control group (P<0.05). The median survival time was 27.0 weeks in the treatment group and 24.5 weeks in the control group. The 6-months cumulative survival rates in the treatment and control groups were 33.3% and 25.0%, respectively, with no significant difference (P>0.05). The PFS was 18 weeks in the treatment group and 15 weeks in control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: XAP enhances the quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced HCC, improves their immunity and extends their PFS. (C) 2013 JTCM. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available