Objective To analyze the curative effect of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)combined with early enteral nutrition(EN)for treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis(SAP). Methods 70 SAP patients were randomly divided into TCM plus EN group(36 cases)and conventional therapy group(34 cases). Both groups received routine treatment. Additionally,TCM+EN group received early EN and TCM decoction treatment〔the ingredients of decoction including radix bupleuri,radix paeoniae alba,radix scutellariae,fructus aurantii immaturus, magnolia bark,raw rhubarb(rhubarb was added at last during cooking the decoction)and natrii sulfas exsiccatus (dissolved in water to be administered)each 10 g,the decoction was concentrated to 150 mL and then administered via a stomach tube to the patient,afterwards the tube was clipped for 2.5-3 hours,twice a day,4-7 days constituting a therapeutic course〕. After treatment,the time for patients' symptoms improvement,the situation of intestinal recovery, the length of stay in hospital,the total medical cost,serum C-reactive protein(CRP),aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), amylase (AMY), acute physiology and chronic health evaluationⅡ(APACHEⅡ)score and complications,intensive care unit(ICU)transfer rate and case fatality rate in two groups were observed. Results The time for symptoms improvement of abdominal tenderness(day:1.68±1.01 vs. 3.89±1.07), abdominal distension(day:2.17±1.48 vs. 4.24±3.23),abdominal pain(day:3.12±1.14 vs. 4.94±3.21)and the intestinal recovery of exhaust defecation time(day:3.48±0.92 vs. 5.32±3.30)of SAP patients after treatment in the TCM+EN group were faster significantly than those in the conventional therapy group(all P<0.05). The length of stay in hospital(day:15.50±1.75 vs. 19.35±1.69)and total cost(wan yuan:1.812±0.424 vs. 3.292±1.081) of TCM+EN group were less than those of conventional therapy group(P<0.05 or P<0.01). After treatment,the levels of serum CRP,AST,LDH,AMY,APACHEⅡscore in TCM+EN group and conventional therapy group were all lower than those before treatment,and on day 10,the degree of descent was more prominent in TCM+EN group〔CRP(mg/L):98.972±43.384 vs. 122.392±71.621,AST(U/L):75.952±55.668 vs. 126.391±47.431, LDH (μmol?s-1?L-1):1.48±0.21 vs. 2.61±1.46,AMY(U/L):146.362±58.792 vs. 226.392±37.692,APACHE Ⅱscores:6.978±3.352 vs. 13.652±7.621,P<0.05 or P<0.01〕. There was no death in TCM+EN group,while in the conventional therapy group,there was 1 case dead. ICU transfer rate in TCM+EN group was less than that in the conventional therapy group(2.78% vs. 11.76%),but there was no statistical significant difference between the two groups(χ2=0.99,P>0.05). Among the 70 patients with SAP,the cause of the disease due to gallstone accounted for 55.72%,hyperlipidemia for 37.14%,alcoholic for 4.28%and other 2.86%. Conclusion The use of TCM combined with early EN for treatment of patients with SAP can enhance the curative effect of SAP,reduce the hospitalization time and the total cost of patients,and decrease complications and mortality,that is conducive to the faster recovery of patients.

Objective To analyze the efficacy and safety of DCF and XELOX regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer and to explore the appropriate chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer.Methods 63 patients with advanced gastric cancer were divided into two groups.Group A (31 patients) was administered with DCF regimen,with docetaxel 60-75 mg/m2 on day 1,5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 on day 1 to day 5,cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1,a total cycle of 21 days.Group B (32 patients) was performed with XELOX regimen,with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1,capecitabine 100 mg/m2 twice a day on day 1 to day 14.Results 63 cases were eligible to analyze the efficacy and adverse reactions.The efficient rate (PR+CR) of group A and B were 58.1％ and 62.5 ％,respectively.The median survival time were 10.9 months and 11.5 months,but there were no significant difference between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).The patients in both groups showed the similar tolerance of adverse reaction.Bone marrow suppression above level 3 in group A (16.1％) was higher than that in group B (9.3 ％).Hair loss above level 2-3 in group A was higher (77.4 ％).Hand-foot syndrome in group B (68.8 ％) was higher than that in group A (9.6 ％).Mild liver function damage in group B (37.5 ％) was higher than that in group A (16.1％).Conclusion The DCF and XELOX schemes have the similar effect in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer with the tolerate side effect.

OBJECTIVETo investigate the efficacy and adverse effect of DCF regimen with subsequent S-1 maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODSSixty AGC patients without disease progression after 4 to 6 cycles of DCF regimen as the first-line chemotherapy were randomized into maintenance group and control group (30 patients each). The patients in the maintenance group received maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 (40 mg/m(2), twice daily for 14 days; 21 days for a treatment cycle) until disease progression or with intolerant toxicity, and those in the control group received optimal supportive care.

RESULTSThe response rate (CR+PR) was 33.3% in the maintenance group, significantly higher than that in the control group (3.33%, P<0.05), and the disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) also differed significantly between the two groups (73.3% vs 46.7%, P<0.05). The median time to progression was 7.9 months in the maintenance group and 6.8 months in the control group, with median overall survival time of 13.8 and 11.7 months, respectively (P>0.05). The most common adverse effect in the maintenance group included nausea, vomiting, leucocytopenia, and hand-foot syndrome; no death occurred in relation to the therapy.

CONCLUSIONS-1 maintenance chemotherapy, with a tolerable toxicity profile, can improve the RR, DCR and median time to progression in AGC patients who respond to DCF regimen, but its efficacy still awaits further evaluation.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols ; Humans ; Maintenance Chemotherapy ; Stomach Neoplasms ; drug therapy

Objective To investigate the efficacy and adverse effect of DCF regimen with subsequent S-1 maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods Sixty AGC patients without disease progression after 4 to 6 cycles of DCF regimen as the first-line chemotherapy were randomized into maintenance group and control group (30 patients each). The patients in the maintenance group received maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 (40 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days; 21 days for a treatment cycle) until disease progression or with intolerant toxicity, and those in the control group received optimal supportive care. Results The response rate (CR+PR) was 33.3%in the maintenance group, significantly higher than that in the control group (3.33%, P<0.05), and the disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) also differed significantly between the two groups (73.3% vs 46.7%, P<0.05). The median time to progression was 7.9 months in the maintenance group and 6.8 months in the control group, with median overall survival time of 13.8 and 11.7 months, respectively (P>0.05). The most common adverse effect in the maintenance group included nausea, vomiting, leucocytopenia, and hand-foot syndrome; no death occurred in relation to the therapy. Conclusions S-1 maintenance chemotherapy, with a tolerable toxicity profile, can improve the RR, DCR and median time to progression in AGC patients who respond to DCF regimen, but its efficacy still awaits further evaluation.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and adverse effect of DCF regimen with subsequent S-1 maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods Sixty AGC patients without disease progression after 4 to 6 cycles of DCF regimen as the first-line chemotherapy were randomized into maintenance group and control group (30 patients each). The patients in the maintenance group received maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 (40 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days; 21 days for a treatment cycle) until disease progression or with intolerant toxicity, and those in the control group received optimal supportive care. Results The response rate (CR+PR) was 33.3%in the maintenance group, significantly higher than that in the control group (3.33%, P<0.05), and the disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) also differed significantly between the two groups (73.3% vs 46.7%, P<0.05). The median time to progression was 7.9 months in the maintenance group and 6.8 months in the control group, with median overall survival time of 13.8 and 11.7 months, respectively (P>0.05). The most common adverse effect in the maintenance group included nausea, vomiting, leucocytopenia, and hand-foot syndrome; no death occurred in relation to the therapy. Conclusions S-1 maintenance chemotherapy, with a tolerable toxicity profile, can improve the RR, DCR and median time to progression in AGC patients who respond to DCF regimen, but its efficacy still awaits further evaluation.