Chinese General Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (30): 3759-3764.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2023.0185
• Original Research • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2023-03-30
Revised:
2023-05-30
Published:
2023-10-20
Online:
2023-06-13
Contact:
MA Chunzheng
通讯作者:
马纯政
作者简介:
基金资助:
组别 | 例数 | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁) | 体质量(kg) | TNM分期(Ⅲ/Ⅳa/Ⅳb) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 26/7 | 57.2±7.0 | 59.97±5.26 | 14/10/9 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 24/9 | 60.0±6.5 | 62.03±5.48 | 14/8/11 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 27/6 | 59.6±5.9 | 60.51±6.36 | 13/12/8 |
检验统计量值 | 0.818a | 1.813b | 1.149b | 1.849c | |
P值 | 0.664 | 0.169 | 0.321 | 0.970 |
Table 1 Comparison of general data among the three groups
组别 | 例数 | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁) | 体质量(kg) | TNM分期(Ⅲ/Ⅳa/Ⅳb) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 26/7 | 57.2±7.0 | 59.97±5.26 | 14/10/9 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 24/9 | 60.0±6.5 | 62.03±5.48 | 14/8/11 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 27/6 | 59.6±5.9 | 60.51±6.36 | 13/12/8 |
检验统计量值 | 0.818a | 1.813b | 1.149b | 1.849c | |
P值 | 0.664 | 0.169 | 0.321 | 0.970 |
组别 | 例数 | 吞咽困难评分 | 胸骨后疼痛评分 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |||||
对照组 | 33 | 3.03±0.68 | 2.55±0.56 | 3.087 | 0.002 | 2.91±0.68 | 2.48±0.76 | 4.346 | <0.001 | |||
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 2.82±0.88 | 2.55±0.47 | 1.897 | 0.058 | 2.76±0.83 | 2.42±0.75 | 2.105 | 0.035 | |||
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 3.12±0.60 | 2.00±0.75ab | 4.845 | <0.001 | 2.82±0.68 | 2.06±0.56ab | 4.291 | <0.001 | |||
F值 | 1.491 | 8.190 | 0.356 | 3.612 | ||||||||
P值 | 0.230 | 0.001 | 0.701 | 0.031 | ||||||||
组别 | 恶心呕吐评分 | 咯吐黏液评分 | 呕吐物评分 | |||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |
对照组 | 3.06±0.70 | 2.61±0.70 | 3.638 | 0.005 | 2.91±0.77 | 2.79±0.82 | 2.000 | 0.046 | 2.76±0.66 | 2.46±0.62 | 2.673 | 0.008 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 3.00±0.90 | 2.33±0.74 | 3.240 | 0.001 | 2.94±0.93 | 2.48±0.87 | 2.305 | 0.021 | 2.88±0.82 | 2.42±0.71 | 2.558 | 0.011 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 2.97±0.59 | 1.97±0.64ab | 4.963 | <0.001 | 2.88±0.78 | 2.27±0.76a | 4.264 | <0.001 | 3.00±0.61 | 1.91±0.58ab | 4.730 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.128 | 6.992 | 0.044 | 3.303 | 0.978 | 7.639 | ||||||
P值 | 0.880 | 0.001 | 0.957 | 0.041 | 0.380 | 0.001 | ||||||
组别 | 食少评分 | 大便干燥评分 | 总积分 | |||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |
对照组 | 2.64±0.78 | 2.12±0.65 | 3.266 | 0.001 | 2.61±0.75 | 2.27±0.67 | 2.120 | 0.034 | 19.91±4.25 | 17.27±3.70 | 4.976 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 2.67±0.85 | 2.30±0.81 | 1.794 | 0.073 | 2.67±0.74 | 2.42±0.71 | 1.390 | 0.165 | 19.73±4.26 | 16.94±2.45 | 3.113 | 0.002 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 2.58±0.94 | 1.73±0.80ab | 4.396 | <0.001 | 2.88±0.65 | 1.76±0.61ab | 5.069 | <0.001 | 20.24±4.18 | 13.7±3.55ab | 5.031 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.096 | 4.987 | 1.333 | 9.068 | 0.126 | 11.869 | ||||||
P值 | 0.909 | 0.009 | 0.268 | <0.001 | 0.882 | <0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of TCM syndrome score among the three groups after treatment
组别 | 例数 | 吞咽困难评分 | 胸骨后疼痛评分 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |||||
对照组 | 33 | 3.03±0.68 | 2.55±0.56 | 3.087 | 0.002 | 2.91±0.68 | 2.48±0.76 | 4.346 | <0.001 | |||
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 2.82±0.88 | 2.55±0.47 | 1.897 | 0.058 | 2.76±0.83 | 2.42±0.75 | 2.105 | 0.035 | |||
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 3.12±0.60 | 2.00±0.75ab | 4.845 | <0.001 | 2.82±0.68 | 2.06±0.56ab | 4.291 | <0.001 | |||
F值 | 1.491 | 8.190 | 0.356 | 3.612 | ||||||||
P值 | 0.230 | 0.001 | 0.701 | 0.031 | ||||||||
组别 | 恶心呕吐评分 | 咯吐黏液评分 | 呕吐物评分 | |||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |
对照组 | 3.06±0.70 | 2.61±0.70 | 3.638 | 0.005 | 2.91±0.77 | 2.79±0.82 | 2.000 | 0.046 | 2.76±0.66 | 2.46±0.62 | 2.673 | 0.008 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 3.00±0.90 | 2.33±0.74 | 3.240 | 0.001 | 2.94±0.93 | 2.48±0.87 | 2.305 | 0.021 | 2.88±0.82 | 2.42±0.71 | 2.558 | 0.011 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 2.97±0.59 | 1.97±0.64ab | 4.963 | <0.001 | 2.88±0.78 | 2.27±0.76a | 4.264 | <0.001 | 3.00±0.61 | 1.91±0.58ab | 4.730 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.128 | 6.992 | 0.044 | 3.303 | 0.978 | 7.639 | ||||||
P值 | 0.880 | 0.001 | 0.957 | 0.041 | 0.380 | 0.001 | ||||||
组别 | 食少评分 | 大便干燥评分 | 总积分 | |||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | |
对照组 | 2.64±0.78 | 2.12±0.65 | 3.266 | 0.001 | 2.61±0.75 | 2.27±0.67 | 2.120 | 0.034 | 19.91±4.25 | 17.27±3.70 | 4.976 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 2.67±0.85 | 2.30±0.81 | 1.794 | 0.073 | 2.67±0.74 | 2.42±0.71 | 1.390 | 0.165 | 19.73±4.26 | 16.94±2.45 | 3.113 | 0.002 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 2.58±0.94 | 1.73±0.80ab | 4.396 | <0.001 | 2.88±0.65 | 1.76±0.61ab | 5.069 | <0.001 | 20.24±4.18 | 13.7±3.55ab | 5.031 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.096 | 4.987 | 1.333 | 9.068 | 0.126 | 11.869 | ||||||
P值 | 0.909 | 0.009 | 0.268 | <0.001 | 0.882 | <0.001 |
组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 35.82±4.04 | 41.27±4.04 | -8.123 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 35.24±5.74 | 46.70±5.91a | -8.130 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 36.48±5.68 | 48.48±6.01a | -11.008 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.469 | 15.984 | |||
P值 | 0.627 | <0.001 |
Table 3 Comparison of the quality of life score of the three groups before and after treatment
组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 35.82±4.04 | 41.27±4.04 | -8.123 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 35.24±5.74 | 46.70±5.91a | -8.130 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 36.48±5.68 | 48.48±6.01a | -11.008 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.469 | 15.984 | |||
P值 | 0.627 | <0.001 |
组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 72.39±6.23 | 74.70±5.71 | -7.236 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 73.03±6.40 | 78.55±9.16a | -2.912 | 0.006 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 72.42±6.23 | 85.85±3.77ab | -9.649 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.108 | 24.308 | |||
P值 | 0.898 | <0.001 |
Table 4 Comparison of KPS score of the three groups before and after treatment
组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 72.39±6.23 | 74.70±5.71 | -7.236 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 73.03±6.40 | 78.55±9.16a | -2.912 | 0.006 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 72.42±6.23 | 85.85±3.77ab | -9.649 | <0.001 |
F值 | 0.108 | 24.308 | |||
P值 | 0.898 | <0.001 |
组别 | 例数 | CEA | SCC | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 33 | 22.45±4.42 | 9.76±1.00 | 17.267 | <0.001 | 15.30±1.38 | 4.48±2.13 | 24.399 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 22.74±4.05 | 10.15±4.56 | 11.143 | <0.001 | 15.88±1.69 | 4.70±3.20 | 17.672 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 23.94±4.06 | 5.55±1.89ab | 28.347 | <0.001 | 15.67±1.81 | 3.41±1.62ab | 28.226 | <0.001 |
F值 | 1.558 | 25.418 | 1.042 | 2.894 | |||||
P值 | 0.216 | <0.001 | 0.357 | 0.060 |
Table 5 Comparison of CEA and SCC levels of the three groups before and after treatment
组别 | 例数 | CEA | SCC | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 33 | 22.45±4.42 | 9.76±1.00 | 17.267 | <0.001 | 15.30±1.38 | 4.48±2.13 | 24.399 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 22.74±4.05 | 10.15±4.56 | 11.143 | <0.001 | 15.88±1.69 | 4.70±3.20 | 17.672 | <0.001 |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 23.94±4.06 | 5.55±1.89ab | 28.347 | <0.001 | 15.67±1.81 | 3.41±1.62ab | 28.226 | <0.001 |
F值 | 1.558 | 25.418 | 1.042 | 2.894 | |||||
P值 | 0.216 | <0.001 | 0.357 | 0.060 |
组别 | 例数 | CR | PR | SD | PD | 病灶缓解率 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 6(18.2) | 15(45.4) | 3(9.1) | 9(27.3) | 24(72.7) |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 7(21.2) | 16(48.5) | 3(9.1) | 7(21.2) | 26(78.8) |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 9(27.3) | 18(54.5) | 3(9.1) | 3(9.1) | 30(90.9) |
Table 6 Comparison of lesion remission rates of the three groups after treatment
组别 | 例数 | CR | PR | SD | PD | 病灶缓解率 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 33 | 6(18.2) | 15(45.4) | 3(9.1) | 9(27.3) | 24(72.7) |
治疗Ⅰ组 | 33 | 7(21.2) | 16(48.5) | 3(9.1) | 7(21.2) | 26(78.8) |
治疗Ⅱ组 | 33 | 9(27.3) | 18(54.5) | 3(9.1) | 3(9.1) | 30(90.9) |
毒副作用 | 对照组(n=33) | 治疗Ⅰ组(n=33) | 治疗Ⅱ组(n=33) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | 0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | 0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | |
白细胞降低 | 13 | 15 | 5 | 13 | 14 | 6 | 14 | 15 | 4 |
血小板降低 | 16 | 15 | 2 | 19 | 13 | 1 | 16 | 13 | 4 |
胃肠道反应 | 15 | 16 | 2 | 10 | 16 | 7 | 15 | 16 | 2 |
脱发 | 12 | 20 | 1 | 9 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 18 | 1 |
神经毒性 | 17 | 13 | 3 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 16 | 14 | 3 |
肝功能损伤 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 15 | 7 | 11 | 19 | 13 | 1 |
肾功能损伤 | 16 | 16 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 3 |
皮肤反应 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 18 | 12 | 1 | 25 | 7 |
Table 7 Toxic side effects of patients in the three groups after treatment
毒副作用 | 对照组(n=33) | 治疗Ⅰ组(n=33) | 治疗Ⅱ组(n=33) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | 0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | 0级 | Ⅰ~Ⅱ级 | Ⅲ~Ⅳ级 | |
白细胞降低 | 13 | 15 | 5 | 13 | 14 | 6 | 14 | 15 | 4 |
血小板降低 | 16 | 15 | 2 | 19 | 13 | 1 | 16 | 13 | 4 |
胃肠道反应 | 15 | 16 | 2 | 10 | 16 | 7 | 15 | 16 | 2 |
脱发 | 12 | 20 | 1 | 9 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 18 | 1 |
神经毒性 | 17 | 13 | 3 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 16 | 14 | 3 |
肝功能损伤 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 15 | 7 | 11 | 19 | 13 | 1 |
肾功能损伤 | 16 | 16 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 3 |
皮肤反应 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 18 | 12 | 1 | 25 | 7 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
叶明. 顺铂加5-氟尿嘧啶联合治疗晚期食管癌的有效性[J]. 世界最新医学信息文摘,2019,19(81):158-159. DOI:10.19613/j.cnki.1671-3141.2019.81.105.
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
林洪生. 恶性肿瘤中医诊疗指南:2014年版[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2014:295-317.
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
代军. 侵犯黏膜下层早期食管癌行内镜黏膜下剥离术联合放疗的临床应用价值[J]. 中国全科医学,2020,23(S2):81-83.
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
李吉磊,杨莉丽,许彦超,等. 马纯政分阶段治疗食管癌经验撷菁[J]. 中医药通报,2020,19(6):18-20.
|
[15] |
马纯政,屈帅勇,李洪霖,等. 虎七散联合化疗治疗中晚期痰瘀互结型食管癌的临床研究[J]. 中医肿瘤学杂志,2020,2(3):25-30.
|
[16] |
王依明,王秋红. 半夏的化学成分、药理作用及毒性研究进展[J]. 中国药房,2020,31(21):2676-2682. DOI:10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2020.21.20.
|
[17] |
陈林伟,戴培培,江勇,等. 中药壁虎抗肿瘤的研究现状及展望[J]. 南京中医药大学学报,2022,38(10):892-897. DOI:10.14148/j.issn.1672-0482.2022.0892.
|
[18] |
马纯政,李吉磊,陈梦利,等. 虎七散通过PI3K/Akt/mTOR信号通路抑制自噬的机制研究[J]. 中国中医急症,2020,29(8):1330-1334.
|
[19] |
李泽宇,郝二伟,杜正彩,等. 桂郁金研究进展及基于质量标志物的保肝、抗肿瘤机制分析[J]. 中国中药杂志,2022,47(7):1739-1753. DOI:10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20211220.203.
|
[20] |
齐娜,段文娟,李雅婧,等. 麝香酮药理作用的研究进展[J]. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化,2020,22(8):3042-3047.
|
[21] |
薛珊,王程,杨蕾磊,等. 蜈蚣提取物体外抗肿瘤活性比较及体内活性评价[J]. 中国医院药学杂志,2019,39(4):331-334. DOI:10.13286/j.cnki.chinhosppharmacyj.2019.04.03.
|
[22] |
彭德乾,王灿红,刘洋洋,等. 沉香的化学成分及其药理活性的研究进展[J]. 中国现代应用药学,2021,38(3):358-365. DOI:10.13748/j.cnki.issn1007-7693.2021.03.019.
|
[23] | |
[24] |
田颖颖,杨爱琳,陈孝男,等. 龙血竭抗肿瘤作用研究进展[J]. 中国中药杂志,2021,46(8):2037-2044.
|
[25] |
李文基,马骏,赵文秀. 皂角刺抗肿瘤药理作用及化学成分研究进展[J]. 甘肃中医药大学学报,2020,37(6):85-88. DOI:10.16841/j.issn1003-8450.2020.06.21.
|
[1] | LIU Ailing, ZHOU Jingjing, LI Chengcheng, HE Kaiyue, LIANG Shanshan, ZHOU Shangcheng. Analysis of the Disease Burden Trends and Death Projections for Esophageal Cancer Attributable to Tobacco in China from 1990 to 2019 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(36): 4587-4594. |
[2] | ZHANG Jifang, CHEN Fang, TANG Jiawen, LI Hongliang. Predictive Value of Tumor Budding and Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes on Lymph Node Metastasis of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(32): 4038-4042. |
[3] | ZHANG Ming, XU Jing, SUN Zhenhua, ZHAO Wenhao, MA Yingqian, ZHANG Jianqiao, SHEN Haiping. Improvement of Nutritional Status of Elderly Patients with Severe Obstruction Esophageal Carcinoma by Image-guided Photodynamic Therapy [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3780-3784. |
[4] | ZHENG Yuling, ZHANG Yaling, LIU Huaimin, XU Yanchao, JIA Xiaolin, LI Junsai, HE Wenlong, TONG Xinduo, QIN Shanwen, ZHANG Lihan. Clinical Observation of Dingxiang Guanshitong Hanhua Pills Alone and Its Combination with Fugui Guanshitong Granules in the Treatment of Advanced Esophageal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3765-3771. |
[5] | YAN Ke, WEI Wanyi, LI Shuguang, YAO Weinan, DONG Jing, WANG Xiaobin, ZHANG Xueyuan, YANG Jie, SHEN Wenbin, ZHU Shuchai. Effect of Consolidation Chemotherapy on Prognosis of StageⅡ-Ⅲ Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Definitive Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radio-therapy [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3772-3779. |
[6] | YAN Ke, WEI Wanyi, DENG Wenzhao, SHEN Wenbin, LI Shuguang, DU Xingyu, ZHANG Xueyuan, YANG Jie, ZHU Shuchai. Long-term Prognosis Analysis and Influencing Factors of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radio-therapy for Cervical and Upper Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3785-3790. |
[7] | XUE Shan, LI Laiyou, LIANG Junli, JIN Yinghui, WEI Shuyan. The Efficacy and Safety of Home Enteral Nutrition in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(20): 2540-2547. |
[8] | ZHANG Yushuang, KONG Lingyang, GUAN Jiachang, LI Jianbo, WANG Yiran, WANG Yu, LI Jing. 16S rDNA Sequence Analysis of the Characteristics of Gut Flora in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(20): 2496-2502. |
[9] | ZHAI Leilei, ZHAO Shupeng, YAO Ping. Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Dietary Inflammatory Index and Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Risks [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(18): 2286-2292. |
[10] | TU Jiaxin, YE Huiqing, ZHANG Xiaoqiang, LIN Xueting, YANG Shanlan, DENG Lifang, WU Lei. Visualization Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Global Esophageal Cancer Research, 2000-2022 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(06): 760-768. |
[11] | Yan LI, Kunlun WANG, Hui YANG, Erjiang ZHAO, Bingxu LI, Shenglei LI, Xiaotao DONG, Ling YUAN. Prognostic Value of Lactate Dehydrogenase in Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients with Immunotherapy [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(26): 3263-3269. |
[12] |
ZHANG Yushuang, YU Fuyang, WU Zhongbing, WANG Yiran, LI Jing.
Analysis of Gut Flora in a Mouse Model of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Situ [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(08): 945-951. |
[13] | ZHU Lingyan,SHEN Yi,SHAO Yi,LIU Fen. The Role of m6A RNA Methylation Modification in Esophageal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2021, 24(32): 4150-4154. |
[14] | WU Xiufang,NAN Qiong,ZHANG Xiaohong,GENG Ting,CHEN Zihong. Diagnostic Value of Plasma SEPT9 Methylation Test for Colorectal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2021, 24(15): 1915-1919. |
[15] | YUAN Linfang,ZHAO Wenjing,LIU Yue,WU Bianliang,HUANG Yizhou. Lung Protective Effect of Perioperative Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine in Patients after Radical Resection of Esophageal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2019, 22(36): 4465-4470. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 224
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 581
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||