3.3 Clinical Efficacy Indicators

3.3 Clinical Efficacy Indicators

3.3.1 Comparison of Objective Tumor Efficacy Between the Two Groups

The post-treatment objective tumor efficacy evaluation of the two groups is shown in Table 8 and Figure 1.

Table 8 Post-treatment Objective Tumor Efficacy Evaluation of the Two Groups

Note: The treatment group’s tumor remission rate was 35.29%, and the tumor stability rate (CR+PR+SD) was 85.29%; the control group’s tumor remission rate was 14.71%, and the tumor stability rate (CR+PR+SD) was 58.82%. Overall comparison of the two groups’ objective tumor efficacy showed statistically significant differences by rank-sum test, P<0.05, indicating that the treatment group performed better than the control group.

Figure 1 Post-treatment Objective Tumor Efficacy Evaluation of the Two Groups

(Bar chart: Control Group CR 0, PR 5, SD 15, PD 14; Treatment Group CR 0, PR 12, SD 17, PD 5)

3.3.2 Comparison of Tumor Stability Rates Between the Two Groups

The comparison of tumor stability rates between the two groups is shown in Table 9 and Figure 2.

Table 9 Comparison of Tumor Stability Rates Between the Two Groups

Note: Stable = CR + PR + SD; Progressive = PD; The comparison of tumor stability rates between the two groups, analyzed statistically by χ² test, showed P<0.05, indicating statistically significant differences, which means the treatment group had a higher tumor stability rate than the control group.

Figure 2 Comparison of Tumor Stability Rates Between the Two Groups

(Bar chart: Treatment Group Stable 29, Progressive 5; Control Group Stable 20, Progressive 14)

3.3.3 Improvement in Quality of Life

According to the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, the post-treatment scores of the two groups were statistically analyzed. The improvement in quality of life of the two groups is shown in Table 10.

Table 10 Post-treatment Quality of Life of the Two Groups

Note: The quality of life of the two groups was statistically significantly different by independent samples t-test, P<0.01, indicating that the treatment group significantly outperformed the control group in improving patients’ quality of life.

Figure 3 Pre- and Post-treatment Quality of Life of the Two Groups

(Line chart: Treatment Group Pre-treatment 64.53, Post-treatment 78.53; Control Group Pre-treatment 67.41, Post-treatment 72.65)

3.3.4 Post-treatment AFP Levels

The improvement in post-treatment AFP levels of the two groups is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Post-treatment AFP Levels of the Two Groups (Unit: ng/ml)

Note: The number of cases where post-treatment AFP levels decreased was greater in the treatment group than in the control group. Statistical analysis by rank-sum test showed P<0.05, indicating statistically significant differences, confirming that the combined treatment group was superior to the control group in reducing patients’ AFP levels.

3.3.5 Post-treatment Liver Function in the Two Groups

The improvement in post-treatment ALT, AST, and γ-GT values of the two groups is shown in Table 12 and Figure 4.

Research on Pei Zhengxue’s Series of Formulas

Table 12 Post-treatment ALT, AST, and γ-GT Values of the Two Groups (x̄±S) (Unit: U/L)

Note: The pre- and post-treatment ALT, AST, and γ-GT values of the two groups were statistically significant by t-test, P<0.05, with intergroup comparisons showing *P<0.05, indicating statistically significant differences.

---

Figure 4 Post-treatment ALT, AST, and γ-GT Values of the Two Groups

---

3.4 Safety Indicators