[A randomized clinical trial of @entity136 plus @entity900 compared with @entity136 plus XXXX in the treatment of @entity1149 ].

@entity1 @entity137 @entity902 @entity900 @entity1149 @entity1206 @entity136 @entity1209
BACKGROUND: Although @entity902 -based chemotherapy has become a standard treatment for @entity1149 ( @entity1149 ), its severe @entity137 limit clinical application and a new alternative regimen is required. The aim of this study was to assess efficacy, survival rate and @entity137 of @entity136 + @entity900 regimen (GP) versus @entity136 + @entity1206 regimen (GN) in the treatment of advanced @entity1149 @entity1 . METHODS: One hundred and three @entity1 with stage III or IV @entity1149 were enrolled into this study, and 52 @entity1 and 51 @entity1 were randomly divided into GP group and GN group respectively. @entity136 1000mg/m   on days 1 and 8 and @entity900 80mg/m   on day 1 were administered to @entity1 in GP group, while @entity136 1000mg/m   on days 1 and 8 and @entity1206 25mg/m   on days 1 and 8 were given to @entity1 in GN group. Both regimens were repeated every 3 weeks, no more than 6 cycles for each @entity1 . RESULTS: An objective response rate of 34.6% was observed in GP arm versus 27.5% in GN arm and 1-year survival rate was 68.8% in GP arm and 73.1% in GN arm with no significant difference in statistical analysis (P > 0.05). The median survival time was 19.5 months for GN arm and 14.4 months for GP arm. @entity1209 were the major dose-limiting @entity137 . The incidence of @entity1209 was significantly higher in GP arm than that in GN arm (51.9% vs 2.0%, P=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Both GP regimen and GN regimen are effective regimens when used in Chinese advanced @entity1149 @entity1 , however @entity1209 in GP regimen are significantly lower than that in GP regimen.
