Combination of Jianpi Liqi Yiliu Formula with Cytokine-induced Killer Cell Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma / 中国中西医结合杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Jianpi Liqi Yiliu Formula (JLYF) combined with cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Between January 2011 and January 2014, 60 advanced HCC patients were enrolled in this study, who were assigned to the treatment group and the control group according to their willingness for taking JLYF, 30 cases in each group. All patients received CIK cell treatment: 1 x 10⁹-3 x 10⁹ each time, by intravenous dripping from the 1st day to the 3rd day, once per day. Besides, patients in the treatment group took JLYF decoction, while those in the control group took Chinese medical decoction by syndrome typing. All patients received treatment of at least two cycles. The time to progression (TTP) , overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), performance status scale (PS), Child-Pugh scale, and adverse reactions were observed, and subgroup analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>To May 31, 2014, all patients reached the clinical endpoint. TTP was 3.5 months (95% Cl: 3.30-4.10) in the treatment group, better than that (2.5 months, 95% CI: 2.32-2.68) of the control group (P < 0.05). DCR was 36.7% in the treatment group and 30.0% in the control group (P > 0.05). OS was 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.53-5.87) in the treatment group and 4.6 months (95% CI: 4.06-5.14) in the control group (P > 0.05). The PS scale was 1.60 ± 0.10 after treatment, lower than that (1.80 ± 0.09) before treatment in the treatment group (P < 0.05). When the PS scale was 0-2 or Child-Pugh scale was class A, TTP was longer in the treatment group than in the control group (P < 0.05). No adverse reaction occurred in the two groups during the treatment course.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The combination of JLYF with ClK cell treatment could prolong advanced HCC patients' TTP, improve PS scale, as compared with syndrome typed Chinese medical decoction treatment group. Besides, when the PS scale was 0-2 or Child-Pugh scale was class A, it was a better treatment program for advanced HCC patients.</p>

The distribution of Chinese medicine syndrome types in primary liver cancer and their differences of the survival time: a clinical study / 中国中西医结合杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the distribution of Chinese medicine (CM) syndrome types in primary liver cancer (PLC) and their differences of the survival time.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>From May 2007 to March 2009, recruited were 151 PLC inpatients at Department of Tumor, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Their survival time were statistically calculated. Patients' average survival time and median survival time were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. The Log-rank test was used to analyze their differences of survival time among different CM syndrome types.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The proportion of CM syndrome types in PLC patients were ranked from high to low as follows: mutual accumulation of dampness and blood stasis syndrome [MADBSS, 43.0% (65/151)], Gan-stagnation Pi-deficiency syndrome [GSPDS, 34.4% (52/151)], qi stagnation blood stasis syndrome [QSBSS, 9.3% (14/151)], retention of damp-heat syndrome [RDHS, 8.6%(13/151)], and Gan-Shen yin deficiency syndrome [GSYDS, 4.6% (7/ 151)]. The median survival time of different CM syndrome types were ranked from longer to shorter as follows: GSPDS (14.77 months), QSBSS (6.13 months), RDHS (5.27 months), MADBSS (4.78 months), and GSYDS (0.80 months). The mean survival times were ranked from longer to shorter as follows: GSPDS (12.40 months), QSBSS (8.84 months), MADBSS (6.99 months), RDHS (7.08 months), and GSYDS (0.72 months). There was statistical difference in the difference of the survival time among different CM syndrome types (P < 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>GSPDS and MADBSS were the most common CM syndrome types in PLC patients. There was difference in the survival time between GSPDS and MADBSS/between RDHS and GSYDS. There was difference in the survival time between MADBSS and GSYDS. Patients of GSPDS might get the best prognosis, while patients of GSYDS might get the poorest prognosis.</p>