根治性前列腺切除术和放射治疗在治疗高危前列腺癌方面的疗效比较。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Technology and Health Care Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.3233/THC-240910
Lu Yu, Ruping Yan, Deling Yang, Chengxing Xia, Zhixian Zhang
{"title":"根治性前列腺切除术和放射治疗在治疗高危前列腺癌方面的疗效比较。","authors":"Lu Yu, Ruping Yan, Deling Yang, Chengxing Xia, Zhixian Zhang","doi":"10.3233/THC-240910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are effective in controlling the condition of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPCa). However, there is limited research on the prognosis and quality of life of HRPCa patients after different treatment modalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT), when treating high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Overall 103 HRPCa patients were included and were divided into RP group and RT group according to different treatment methods. The propensity score matching method (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups and match 34 patients in each group. The prognosis, quality of life, and basic efficacy of patients were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After intervention, the disease-free survival rate of the RT group was higher than that of the RP group (79.41% vs. 55.88%, p= 0.038). Quality of life scores between the two treatment methods had no difference before intervention (p> 0.05), but higher in RT group than that of the RP group after intervention (p< 0.05). After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate of treatment between two groups (44.12% vs. 58.82%, p> 0.05), but the disease control rate was significantly higher in RT group (94.12% vs. 76.47%, p= 0.040).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radical radiotherapy is effective in the clinical treatment of HRPCa patients, with a higher disease-free survival rate and improved quality of life after treatment, and is worth promoting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48978,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Lu Yu, Ruping Yan, Deling Yang, Chengxing Xia, Zhixian Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/THC-240910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are effective in controlling the condition of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPCa). However, there is limited research on the prognosis and quality of life of HRPCa patients after different treatment modalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT), when treating high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Overall 103 HRPCa patients were included and were divided into RP group and RT group according to different treatment methods. The propensity score matching method (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups and match 34 patients in each group. The prognosis, quality of life, and basic efficacy of patients were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After intervention, the disease-free survival rate of the RT group was higher than that of the RP group (79.41% vs. 55.88%, p= 0.038). Quality of life scores between the two treatment methods had no difference before intervention (p> 0.05), but higher in RT group than that of the RP group after intervention (p< 0.05). After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate of treatment between two groups (44.12% vs. 58.82%, p> 0.05), but the disease control rate was significantly higher in RT group (94.12% vs. 76.47%, p= 0.040).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radical radiotherapy is effective in the clinical treatment of HRPCa patients, with a higher disease-free survival rate and improved quality of life after treatment, and is worth promoting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology and Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology and Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240910\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240910","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根治性前列腺切除术和放射治疗都能有效控制激素抵抗性前列腺癌(HRPCa)患者的病情。然而,对不同治疗方式后 HRPCa 患者的预后和生活质量的研究有限:探讨根治性前列腺切除术(RP)和放射治疗(RT)治疗高危前列腺癌(HRPCa)的疗效:方法:共纳入103例HRPCa患者,根据不同的治疗方法分为RP组和RT组。采用倾向得分匹配法(PSM)平衡两组患者的基线数据,每组匹配 34 例患者。比较两组患者的预后、生活质量和基本疗效:干预后,RT 组的无病生存率高于 RP 组(79.41% 对 55.88%,P= 0.038)。两种治疗方法的生活质量评分在干预前无差异(P> 0.05),但干预后 RT 组高于 RP 组(P< 0.05)。治疗后,两组治疗总有效率差异无统计学意义(44.12% vs. 58.82%,P> 0.05),但RT组疾病控制率明显高于RP组(94.12% vs. 76.47%,P= 0.040):根治性放疗在HRPCa患者的临床治疗中效果显著,无病生存率较高,治疗后生活质量有所改善,值得推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative efficacy of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

Background: Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are effective in controlling the condition of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPCa). However, there is limited research on the prognosis and quality of life of HRPCa patients after different treatment modalities.

Objective: To explore the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT), when treating high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).

Methods: Overall 103 HRPCa patients were included and were divided into RP group and RT group according to different treatment methods. The propensity score matching method (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups and match 34 patients in each group. The prognosis, quality of life, and basic efficacy of patients were compared.

Results: After intervention, the disease-free survival rate of the RT group was higher than that of the RP group (79.41% vs. 55.88%, p= 0.038). Quality of life scores between the two treatment methods had no difference before intervention (p> 0.05), but higher in RT group than that of the RP group after intervention (p< 0.05). After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate of treatment between two groups (44.12% vs. 58.82%, p> 0.05), but the disease control rate was significantly higher in RT group (94.12% vs. 76.47%, p= 0.040).

Conclusion: Radical radiotherapy is effective in the clinical treatment of HRPCa patients, with a higher disease-free survival rate and improved quality of life after treatment, and is worth promoting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Technology and Health Care
Technology and Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
282
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Technology and Health Care is intended to serve as a forum for the presentation of original articles and technical notes, observing rigorous scientific standards. Furthermore, upon invitation, reviews, tutorials, discussion papers and minisymposia are featured. The main focus of THC is related to the overlapping areas of engineering and medicine. The following types of contributions are considered: 1.Original articles: New concepts, procedures and devices associated with the use of technology in medical research and clinical practice are presented to a readership with a widespread background in engineering and/or medicine. In particular, the clinical benefit deriving from the application of engineering methods and devices in clinical medicine should be demonstrated. Typically, full length original contributions have a length of 4000 words, thereby taking duly into account figures and tables. 2.Technical Notes and Short Communications: Technical Notes relate to novel technical developments with relevance for clinical medicine. In Short Communications, clinical applications are shortly described. 3.Both Technical Notes and Short Communications typically have a length of 1500 words. Reviews and Tutorials (upon invitation only): Tutorial and educational articles for persons with a primarily medical background on principles of engineering with particular significance for biomedical applications and vice versa are presented. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of topics. 4.Minisymposia (upon invitation only): Under the leadership of a Special Editor, controversial or important issues relating to health care are highlighted and discussed by various authors. 5.Letters to the Editors: Discussions or short statements (not indexed).
期刊最新文献
Lung ultrasound score for prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in newborns: A meta-analysis. Predicting survival in sepsis: The prognostic value of NLR and BAR ratios. Research progress of music intervention in nursing of premature infants in neonatal intensive care unit. The impact of tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy on cognitive function and brain structure in pediatric patients with OSAHS. Value of perfusion characteristics evaluated by CEUS combined with STQ parameters in diagnosing the properties of SLN in breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1