4.4 Article

Clinical analysis of bevacizumab targeting therapy in treating early colorectal carcinoma after operation

期刊

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 4675-4678

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6087

关键词

bevacizumab; early colorectal carcinoma; targeting therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical effects of bevacizumab target therapy in treating early colorectal carcinoma (CRC) after resection were analyzed. Ninety-two patients diagnosed with early CRC and treated with endoscopic mucosal resection for the first time were selected for the study. They were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group with 46 cases in each group. Control group was administered the chemotherapy regimen with oxaliplatin, calcium folinate and 5-fluorouracil, while bevacizumab targeting therapy was given to the observation group. The follow-up median time in these two groups was 30 months. In the observation group, objective response rate and disease control rate were higher than those in the control group, the adverse reaction rate was lower, and the differences were statistically significant (p< 0.05). In the observation group, disease-free survival was prolonged (38.6 vs. 30.5 months, p< 0.05); the recurrence rate was lower (13.0 vs. 30.4%, p< 0.05); the survival rate was improved (91.3 vs. 76.1%, p< 0.05). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions of follow-up serum in these two groups were lower; VEGF expression in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, and the differences had statistical significance (p< 0.05). There was no statistical significance in comparison of positive expression in tissue VEGF (p> 0.05). In conclusion, after bevacizumab targeting therapy in treating early CRC, VEGF expression of serum was significantly lower; treatment effects improved; adverse drug reaction was reduced; survival time was prolonged; the recurrence rate was reduced; the survival rate improved. It has good application values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据