论文部分内容阅读
目的 系统评价TE方案和CEF方案治疗中国女性乳腺癌患者(TNM分期ⅡA～ⅢC)的有效性和安全性.方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、VIP、CNKI、WanFang Data和CBM数据库,搜集关于TE与CEF比较治疗中国女性乳腺癌的随机对照试验(RCT),检索时限均为建库至2016年12月.由2位研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析.结果 共纳入14个RCT.Meta分析结果显示:TE组的完全缓解率(CR) [RR=1.73,95％CI (1.35,2.22),P＜0.000 1]和总有效率(RR) [RR=1.31,95％CI(1.22,1.42),P＜0.000 01]均优于CEF组;但两组在心脏毒性、骨髓抑制、胃肠道反应发生率方面差异无统计学意义.结论 与CEF方案相比,TE方案治疗中国女性ⅡA～ⅢC乳腺癌患者疗效更好,且安全性相当.受纳入研究数量和质量的限制,上述结论尚待更多高质量研究予以验证.“,”Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of TE regimen versus CEF regimen for Chinese women with Ⅱ A to ⅢC stage breast cancer.Methods Databases including PubMed,EMbase,VIP,CNKI,WanFang Data and CBM were electronically searched from inception to December 2016 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) on TE regimen versus CEF regimen for Chinese women with Ⅱ A to ⅢC stage breast cancer.Two reviewers independently screened literature,extracted data,and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.Then,meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.Results A total of 14 RCTs were included.The results ofmeta-analysis showed that:the complete remission rate (CR) (RR=1.73,95％CI 1.35 to 2.22,P＜0.000 1) and clinical efficacy rate (RR) (RR=1.31,95％CI 1.22 to 1.42,P＜0.000 01) of the TE group were superior to those of the CEF group.But there were no significant differences between two groups in cardiac toxicity,myelosuppression and gastrointestinal reactions.Conclusions TE regimen is superior to CEF regimen in terms of efficacy for the Chinese women with Ⅱ A to ⅢC stage breast cancer,and there is no difference between the incidence of adverse reactions.Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies,more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.