Cancer medicine · 2023
Effects of intrapericardial administration after catheter drainage on malignant pericardial effusion in non-small cell lung cancer: A real-world study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wei Jingwen, Shi Zheng, Song Zhengbo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) is a serious complication of cancer that can be potentially deadly. It usually occurs in advanced or terminal stages of the disease, and as a result, patients with MPE often have a poor prognosis. There is a limited amount of research available that directly compares the effectiveness and safety of intrapericardial drug administration following pericardial drainage versus catheter drainage alone in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who have MPE.
METHODS: We retrospectively included 86 patients with NSCLC with MPE at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Survival and recurrence estimates were determined with the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: We divided the 86 patients with NSCLC into two groups: a pericardial drainage group (34 out of 86, 39.5%) and an intrapericardial administration group (52 out of 86, 60.5%). The response rates were 70.6% and 76.9% (p = 0.510), respectively. The median OS was 132.0 and 234.0 days (p = 0.579), respectively. The median time to recurrent drainage was 43.0 and 104.0 days (p = 0.170), respectively. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 44.1% and 61.5% (p = 0.113), respectively. The most frequent AEs were pain (27.9%) and fever (24.4%). Additionally, two patients in the intrapericardial administration group died of cardiac arrest.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with catheter drainage alone, intrapericardial medication infusion during catheter drainage did not have significantly different effects. AEs require close monitoring and management.
METHODS: We retrospectively included 86 patients with NSCLC with MPE at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Survival and recurrence estimates were determined with the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: We divided the 86 patients with NSCLC into two groups: a pericardial drainage group (34 out of 86, 39.5%) and an intrapericardial administration group (52 out of 86, 60.5%). The response rates were 70.6% and 76.9% (p = 0.510), respectively. The median OS was 132.0 and 234.0 days (p = 0.579), respectively. The median time to recurrent drainage was 43.0 and 104.0 days (p = 0.170), respectively. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 44.1% and 61.5% (p = 0.113), respectively. The most frequent AEs were pain (27.9%) and fever (24.4%). Additionally, two patients in the intrapericardial administration group died of cardiac arrest.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with catheter drainage alone, intrapericardial medication infusion during catheter drainage did not have significantly different effects. AEs require close monitoring and management.