• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Paclitaxel-etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin versus etoposidecarboplatin/cisplatin as first-line treatment for combined small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of 62 cases

    2015-11-26 07:43:44YueYaLiChanZhouDengXiaYangJingWangZhuJunLiuXinYueWangKaiLi
    Cancer Biology & Medicine 2015年2期

    Yue-Ya Li, Chan Zhou, Deng-Xia Yang, Jing Wang, Zhu-Jun Liu, Xin-Yue Wang, Kai Li

    Department of Thoracic Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Tianjin 300060, China

    ORIGNAL ARTICLE

    Paclitaxel-etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin versus etoposidecarboplatin/cisplatin as first-line treatment for combined small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of 62 cases

    Yue-Ya Li, Chan Zhou, Deng-Xia Yang, Jing Wang, Zhu-Jun Liu, Xin-Yue Wang, Kai Li

    Department of Thoracic Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Tianjin 300060, China

    Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of paclitaxel-etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin (TEP/TCE) regimen with those of etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin (EP/CE) regimen as first-line treatment for combined small-cell lung cancer (CSCLC).

    Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 62 CSCLC patients who were treated at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from July 2000 to April 2013 and administered with TEP/TCE regimen (n=19) or EP/ CE regimen (n=43) as first-line CSCLC treatment. All patients received more than two cycles of chemotherapy, and the response was evaluated every two cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects.

    Results: ORR between the TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups showed a statistical difference (90% vs. 53%, P=0.033). Both groups failed to reach a statistical difference in DCR (100% vs. 86%, P=0.212). The median PFS and OS of the TEP/TCE group were slightly longer than those of the EP/CE group, although both groups failed to reach a statistical difference (10.5 vs. 8.9 months, P=0.484; 24.0 vs. 17.5 months, P=0.457). However, stratified analysis indicated that the PFS of patients with stages III and IV CSCLC showed marginally significant difference between the TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups (19.5 vs. 7.6 months; P=0.071). Both rates of grade IV bone marrow depression and termination of chemotherapy in the TEP/TCE group were significantly higher than those in the EP/CE group (26.3% vs. 7.0%, P=0.036; 31.6% vs. 14.7%, P=0.004).

    Conclusion: The TEP/TCE regimen may not be preferred for CSCLC, and this three-drug regimen requires further exploration and research. To date, the EP/CE regimen remains the standard treatment for CSCLC patients.

    Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC); chemotherapy; CE regimen; adverse effects; survival analysis; prognosis

    Introduction

    Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 20% of all lung cancers worldwide1,2. Combined small-celllung cancer (CSCLC) is a subtype of SCLC, representing 2%-28% of SCLC cases3,4. According to the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer classification of lung and pleural tumors5, CSCLC is defined as SCLC combined with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) components, which usually include adenocarcinoma (Ad), squamous-cell carcinoma, large-cell carcinoma6-8, and spindle cell carcinoma9,10. Despite the rare incidence of CSCLC, this malignancy not only grows fast but also resists chemotherapy. Thus, this cancer is taken seriouslyin clinical studies. Unfortunately, no standard regimen has been determined for CSCLC; therefore, its treatment mainly refers to the therapeutic regimens of pure SCLC, such as etoposidecarboplatin/cisplatin (EP/CE)8. However, CSCLC often yields poor prognosis because the combined NSCLC components may be insensitive to such chemotherapy regimens. Given that the majority of combined components of CSCLC were Ad8,10,11. Zhu et al.12added paclitaxel to the EP/CE regimen, thereby forming paclitaxel-etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin (TEP/TCE) regimen for CSCLC. Nevertheless, a consensus on whether the efficiency and security of TEP/TCE regimen is superior to the standard EP/CE regimen remains unclear. The present retrospective study included 62 CSCLC patients, who were diagnosed pathologically. These patients underwent complete follow-up sessions and received initial treatment at the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from July 2006 to April 2013. On the basis of the chemotherapy regimens administrated, 62 patients were classified into two-drug group (receiving EP/CE regimen) and three-drug group (receiving TCE/TEP regimen) to compare the tumor response, survival benefits, and adverse effects of the two groups.

    Materials and methods

    Eligibility of patients

    A total of 62 primary CSCLC patients who were treated at the Cancer Hospital of Tianjin Medical University from July 2006 to April 2013 were enrolled in this study. The following inclusion criteria were applied: (I) patients were diagnosed with CSCLC, which was confirmed via pathology or cytology; (II) patients were previously naive to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery; (III) patients exhibited no other malignancies; (IV) the lesions of patients can be evaluated via imaging; (V) their ages ranged from 34-79, and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score was ≥60; (VI) the results of their blood, routine urine, electrolyte, liver function, kidney function, and electrocardiogram tests were within normal range; (VII) patients underwent complete follow-up sessions.

    Chemotherapy

    The two regimens were TEP/TCE (paclitaxel 135 mg/m2, intravenous on day 1; etoposide 100 mg/m2, intravenous on days 1-3; carboplatin calculated at the area under the curve (AUC) =5, intravenous on day 1 or cisplatin 25 mg/m2, intravenous on days 1-3) and EP/CE (etoposide 100 mg/m2, intravenous on days 1-3; carboplatin calculated at AUC =5, intravenous on day 1 or cisplatin 25 mg/m2, intravenous on days 1-3).

    Evaluation of response

    CT or MRI scan was performed to evaluate tumor response every two chemotherapeutic cycles and at the end of treatment. Patients were examined monthly within 3 months after the end of treatment, every 2 months within 1 year after the end of treatment, and every 3-6 months thereafter. Unidirectional measurements were conducted in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 to evaluate short-term effects. Following the RECIST1.1, tumor response to treatment was classified as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD).

    Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients evaluated as CR and PR, whereas disease control rate (DCR) was calculated as the proportion of patients evaluated as CR, PR, and SD. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the start of treatment until death caused by any cause or until the last follow-up date. Moreover, progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the start of treatment to disease progression or death.

    Toxicity

    Chemotherapy-related adverse reactions were divided into five degrees (0-IV) based on the WHO classification of acute and subacute toxicity performance and indexing standards.

    Statistical analysis

    Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 13.0. A P value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the PFS and OS. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors was performed using Cox’s regression model. Categorical variables were analyzed via χ2test, and measurement data were analyzed using t-test.

    Results

    A total of 540 CSCLC patients existed in 2,371 SCLC cases; thus, the incidence of CSCLC was 22.78%. Finally, we collected the data of 62 CSCLC patients who have met our inclusion criteria. Among 62 CSCLC patients, 49 were males and 13 were females, and the ratio of male patients to female patients was 3.85:1. The age of patients ranged from 34-79 years old, and the median age was 60. Smoking history was confirmed in 51 cases. In accordance with TNM staging, 5 patients were categorized in stage I, 5 patients were in stage II, and 52 patientswere in advanced stage (25 patients were in stage III and 27 patients were in stage IV). The two chemotherapy regimen groups showed no significant differences in the baseline data (Table 1).

    A total of 15 patients at stages I, II, and IIIa (T1-3N2M0) received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with 3-drug regimen or 2-drug regimen. Other patients received radiationcombined with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Among the 62 patients, 19 received TEP/TCE regimen and 43 received EP/CE regimen.

    Table 1 General condition of 62 primary CSCLC patients, n (%)

    Both chemotherapy regimens were administered at an interval of 3 weeks, and each patient completed at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy. Some patients accepted thoracic radiotherapy within 2 to 4 cycles of chemotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy, which was administered with 2 Gy per fraction and conducted 5 d a week. Some other patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation with a total dose of 30 Gy, which was administered with 3 Gy per fraction and conducted 5 d a week after the chemotherapy was completed.

    Effects

    The TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups showed a statistical difference in ORR (90% vs. 53%, P=0.033, χ2=4.552). However, both groups failed to reach a statistical difference in DCR (100% vs. 86%, P=0.212, χ2=1.558) (Table 2).

    Survival analysis

    All patients were followed up until November 28, 2013, and the median follow-up time was 12.7 months (range, 2-73 months). A total of 30 patients were alive at the end of follow-up, which comprised 11 patients from the TEP/TCE group and 19 patients from the EP/CE group. The median PFS and OS of the TEP/ TCE group were slightly longer than those of the EP/CE group, although both groups failed to reach a statistical difference (10.5 vs. 9.8 months, P=0.484, χ2=0.489; 24 vs. 17.5 months, P=0.457, χ2=0.554) (Figures 1,2). However, stratified analysis indicated that in patients with stages III and IV CSCLC, the median PFS nearly reached a statistical difference between the TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups (19.5 vs. 7.6 months,P=0.071, χ2=3.259), whereas the median OS failed to reach a statistical difference (22.8 vs. 14.3 months, P=0.269, χ2=1.224) (Figures 3,4). However, no significant difference existed between the two groups at stages I and II (Figures 5,6).

    Table 2 Comparison of response between two groups, n (%)

    Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS of 62 patients with stages I-IV CSCLC. The median PFS of 3-drug group was not significantly longer than that of 2-drug group (10.5 vs. 9.8 months, P=0.484). PFS, progression-free survival; CSCLC, combined small-cell lung cancer.

    Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier curves for OS of 62 patients with stages I-IV CSCLC. The median OS of 3-drug group was not significantly longer than that of 2-drug group (24.0 vs. 17.5 months, P=0.457). OS, overall survival; CSCLC, combined small-cell lung cancer.

    Univariate analysis

    Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS of 52 patients with stages III-IV CSCLC. The median PFS of the two groups nearly reached a significant difference (19.5 vs. 7.6 months, P=0.071). PFS, progression-free survival; CSCLC, combined small-cell lung cancer.

    Figure 4 Kaplan-Meier curves for OS of 52 patients with stages IIIIV CSCLC. The difference in median OS between the two groups was marginally significant (22.8 vs. 14.3 months, P=0.269). OS, Overall survival; CSCLC, Combined small-cell lung cancer.

    Figure 5 Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS of 10 patients with stages I-II CSCLC. The median PFS of 3-drug group was not significantly longer than that of 2-drug group (10.5 vs. 30.5 months, P=0.061). PFS, progression-free survival; CSCLC, combined small-cell lung cancer.

    Figure 6 Kaplan-Meier curves for OS of 10 patients with stages I-II CSCLC. The median OS of 3-drug group was not significantly longer than that of 2-drug group (36.7 vs. 30.5 months, P=0.127). OS, overall survival; CSCLC, combined small-cell lung cancer.

    The results showed that patients with KPS score ≤80, distant metastasis, lymph node metastasis, and tumors at stages III andIV displayed poor prognosis (P<0.001, P=0.005, 0.032, and 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, the absence of surgery and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) were considered adverse prognostic factors (P=0.009, 0.042). However, age, gender, smoking index, tumor size, number of chemotherapy cycles, thoracic radiotherapy, second-/third-line therapy were not related to the prognosis (Table 3).

    Multivariate analysis

    A multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was performed using Cox’s regression model. The results showed that the KPS score, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, and PCI were independent predictors of prognosis (P=0.015, 0.007, 0.007, and 0.034, respectively) (Table 3).

    Safety evaluation

    The common chemotherapy-related adverse reactions included bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal reaction, hepatic and renal function lesions, and skin rash. Most of these reactions were slight and reversible. The rates of grade IV bone marrow depression in the TEP/TCE group were significantly higher than those in the EP/CE group (26.3% vs. 7.0%, P=0.036, χ2=4.385). However, although the incidences of skin rash and diarrhea were higher in the TEP/TCE group than in the EP/CE group, both groups (10.5% vs. 0%, P=0.09, χ2=4.677) displayed no statistical difference. The statistical data showed that the replacement and incompletion of chemotherapy were more prevalent in the TEP/ TCE group than in the EP/CE group because of serious adverse reactions (31.6% vs. 4.7%, P=0.004, χ2=8.502), although the main reason for replacement and incompletion of chemotherapy in the EP/CE group was the disease progression (32.6% vs. 5.3%, P=0.021, χ2=5.353).

    Discussion

    CSCLC is currently defined by the WHO as a subset of SCLC, which not only exhibits the characteristics of small cell lung cancer, such as rapid growth and high malignant degree, but also displays the characteristics of NSCLC, such as chemotherapy resistance. Patients with CSCLC have demonstrated poor response to chemotherapy in previous studies13,14. Researchers attributed this finding to the combined NSCLC components. Thus, they attempted to explore ideal chemotherapy regimens. Luo et al.8compared the efficacy and safety of vinorelbine, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (NIP) with EP in treating advanced CSCLC, and they concluded that the ORR, PFS, and OS of patients in the NIP group were slightly inferior than those of patients under traditional EP regimen (83.8% vs. 90.6%, P=0.170; 6 vs. 6.5 months, P=0.163; 10.8 vs. 10.4 months, P=0.935, respectively). The TEP/TCE regimen has been widely used for CSCLC treatment at the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital since 2005, with the aim of increasing the dose intensity and coverage rate of antitumor spectrum. The incidence of CSCLC in this institution was 22.78%, which was consistent with the findings of previous reports3,4. In our study, a large proportion of patients were male (79.03%), heavy smokers (61.29%), and beyond 60 years old, which also corresponded to the study conducted by Lu et al.15.

    The ORRs of the TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups were 90% and 53%, respectively, which reached a significant difference (P=0.033, χ2=4.552). Furthermore, the DCRs of the two groups indicated no significant difference (100% vs. 86%, P=0.212, χ2=1.558). The PFS and OS of the patients in the TEP/TCE group were both slightly longer than those of the patients in the EP/CE group (11.86 vs. 12.14 months; 17.65 vs. 18.01 months, respectively). However, both groups failed to reach a statistical difference. Moreover, safety analysis showed that the incidence of grade IV bone marrow depression and grades III and IV diarrhea was significantly higher in the TEP/TCE group than in the EP/ CE group (P=0.004). Further analysis revealed that such adverse reactions in the TEP/TCE group were nearly consistent with the toxicity of paclitaxel. Statistical data revealed that the replacement and incompletion of chemotherapy were more prevalent in the TEP/TCE group than in the EP/CE group because ofserious adverse effects (31.6% vs. 4.7%, P=0.04, χ2=8.502). In summary, the administration of TEP/TCE regimen can provide beneficial short-term effects, but such effects cannot prolong the PFS and OS of patients with CSCLC. Multivariate analysis also confirmed that only the KPS score, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, and PCI were independent prognostic factors for patients with CSCLC. However, subgroup analysis of patients at stages III and IV revealed that the PFS and OS of patients treated with TEP/TCE regimen are slightly longer than those of patients treated with EP/CE regimen. Moreover, the differences nearly reached statistical significance (10.95 vs. 8.20 months, P=0.071; 10.2 vs. 17.62 months, P=0.089, respectively). This finding suggested that the TEP/TCE regimen may be beneficial to patients with advanced CSCLC and large tumor burden. The statistical data also showed that the main reason of replacement and completion of chemotherapy in the EP/CE group was disease progression (32.6% vs. 5.3%, P=0.021, χ2=5.353). Hence, broad-spectrum antitumor regimen may be superior to standard EP/CE regimen. However, making reasonable choices on the added drugs and reducing the incidence of side reactions areurgent problems that need to be solved. Ad is the most common combined component of CSCLC8,10,11and the effectiveness rate of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin in the treatment of NSCLC (including Ad) reached 22%-47%16-19. Although taxane is good for NSCLC, whether this drug induces the same effect on NSCLC components of CSCLC is unknown. Wagner et al.7determined that the NSCLC and SCLC components of CSCLC shared an identical immunophenotype with prevalent expression of synaptophysin and CD56 and loss of 22q13. Fukui et al.20also determined that patients with CSCLC with Ad shared an identical EGFR mutation in both SCLC and Ad components. Thus, the current findings suggested that NSCLC components of CSCLC may be close to SCLC in biology, and two kinds of components may exhibit the homology of gene sequence. We used next-generation sequencing method to compare and analyze whether the gene expression of Ad components in CSCLC is different from NSCLC. We believe that the results of our study will clarify the correlation of SCLC components with NSCLC components in CSCLC and contribute to the selection of the optimal treatment for CSCLC.

    Table 3 Cox regression analysis of the factors affecting the survival of 62 patients

    In conclusion, EP/CE regimen remains the standard regimen for majority of patients with CSCLC. However, three-drug regimen may increase the curative effect of patients in advanced stage. Nevertheless, this investigation is a retrospective, small, and nonrandomized study. Thus, the results need to be further confirmed by large prospective clinical trials.

    Acknowledgements

    This study was supported by grants from the Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Project (Grant No. 11JCYBJC11300), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81372517), and National Science and Technology Major Project (Grant No. 09303001). This article was published originally in Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015;42(2): 91-95 (in Chinese).

    Conflict of Interest Statement

    No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

    References

    1. Stupp R, Monnerat C, Turrisi AT 3rd, Perry MC, Leyvraz S. Small cell lung cancer: state of the art and feature perspectives. Lung Cancer 2004;45:105-117.

    2. Hermes A, Bergman B, Bremnes R, Ek L, Fluge S, Sederholm C, et al. Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-Cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4261-4267.

    3. Mangum MD, Greco FA, Hainsworth JD, Hande KR, Johnson DH. Combined small-cell and non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:607-612.

    4. Nicholson SA, Beasley MB, Brambilla E, Hasleton PS, Colby TV, Sheppard MN, et al. Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC): a clinicopathologic study of 100 cases with surgical specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:1184-1197.

    5. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Müller-Hermelink HK, Harris CC. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004:31-34.

    6. Buys TP, Aviel-Ronen S, Waddell TK, Lam WL, Tsao MS. Defining genomic alteration boundaries for a combined small cell and nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:227-239.

    7. Wagner PL, Kitabayashi N, Chen YT, Saqi A. Combined small cell lung carcinomas: genotypic and immunophenotypic analysis of the separate morphologic Components. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:376-382.

    8. Luo J, Wu FY, Li AW, Zheng D, Liu JM. Comparison of Vinorelbine, Ifosfamide and Cisplatin (NIP) and Etoposide and Cisplatin (EP) for Treatment of Advanced Combined Small Cell Lung Cancer (cSCLC) Patients: A Retrospective Study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:4703-4706.

    9. Hsiao HH, Tsai HJ, Liu YC, Tseng YT, Tseng SB, Chai CY, et al. A rare case of combined small cell lung cancer with unusual soft tissue metastasis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2006;22:352-356.

    10. Luo J, Ni J, Zheng H, Li AW, Zhou CC. Clinical analysis of 88 cases with combined small cell carcinoma. Tumor 2009;29:156-159.

    11. Liu SG, Liu JH, Li H. Diagnosis and Treatment for 31 Cases with Combined Small Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Oncology 2013;19:900-902. (in Chinese).

    12. Zhu YY, Ge W, Xu HL, Ming PP. The effect of Paclitaxe combined with Cisplatin and Etoposide comparing with Cisplatin and Etoposide on patients with small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. China Medical Herald 2014;11:62-66. (in Chinese).

    13. Wang X, Jiang R, Li K. Prognostic significance of pretreatment laboratory parameters in combined small-cell lung cancer. Cell Biochem Biophys 2014;69:633-640.

    14. Sehested M, Hirsch FR, Osterlind K, Olsen JE. Morphologic variations of small cell lung cancer: a histopathologic study of pretreatment and posttreatment specimens in 104 patients. Cancer 1986;57:804-807.

    15. Lu HY, Mao WM, Cheng QY, Chen B, Cai JF, Wang XJ, et al. Mutation status of epidermal growth factor receptor and clinical features of patients with combined small cell lung cancer who received surgical treatment. Oncol Lett 2012;3:1288-1292.

    16. Zhang S, Zhang QC, Jiang SJ. Effect of trichostatin A and paclitaxel on the proliferation and apoptosis of lung adenocarcinoma cells. Chin Med J (Engl) 2013;126:129-134.

    17. Rigas JR. Taxane-platinum combinations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a review. Oncologist 2004;9 Suppl 2:16-23.

    18. Jia JW, Wu YM, Guo SL, Li YL, Wu JX. Comparison of paclitaxel liposome and traditional taxol plus cisplatin in elderly patients with non -small cell lung cancer. Journal of the Fourth Military Medical University 2008;29:1604-1606. (in Chinese).

    19. Scagliotti G. Optimizing chemotherapy for patients with advanced non- small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2 Suppl 2:S86-S91.

    20. Fukui T, Tsuta K, Furuta K, Watanabe S, Asamura H, Ohe Y, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and clinicopathological features of combined small cell carcinoma with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Cancer Sci 2007;98:1714-1719.

    Cite this article as: Li YY, Zhou C, Yang DX, Wang J, Liu ZJ, Wang XY, Li K. Paclitaxel-etoposide-carboplatin/cisplatin versus etoposide–carboplatin/ cisplatin as first-line treatment for combined small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of 62 cases. Cancer Biol Med 2015;12:117-125. doi: 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2015.0012

    Correspondence to: Kai Li

    E-mail: likai5@medmail.com.cn

    February 5, 2015; accepted May 18, 2015.

    Available at www.cancerbiomed.org

    Copyright ? 2015 by Cancer Biology & Medicine

    男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 变态另类丝袜制服| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 久久香蕉国产精品| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 国产成人av教育| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产成人系列免费观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| av天堂在线播放| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 久99久视频精品免费| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 不卡一级毛片| av有码第一页| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 日本免费a在线| 操出白浆在线播放| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 久久中文看片网| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 一本一本综合久久| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 亚洲av美国av| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 香蕉久久夜色| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 两个人看的免费小视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 欧美在线黄色| www.www免费av| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产黄片美女视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 操出白浆在线播放| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 国产av一区二区精品久久| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 91av网站免费观看| 久99久视频精品免费| 我的亚洲天堂| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 91字幕亚洲| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线 | 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 精品电影一区二区在线| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 制服诱惑二区| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 香蕉久久夜色| 曰老女人黄片| 丁香欧美五月| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 午夜免费激情av| 在线播放国产精品三级| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| bbb黄色大片| 精品高清国产在线一区| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 精品久久久久久成人av| 欧美日本视频| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 日本在线视频免费播放| 亚洲最大成人中文| 美女免费视频网站| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 一进一出抽搐动态| av中文乱码字幕在线| 怎么达到女性高潮| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 悠悠久久av| 午夜a级毛片| 免费高清视频大片| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 午夜福利在线观看吧| a在线观看视频网站| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲三区欧美一区| www日本黄色视频网| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 欧美成人午夜精品| a级毛片a级免费在线| 色av中文字幕| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 久久香蕉国产精品| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 又大又爽又粗| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 熟女电影av网| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 一夜夜www| bbb黄色大片| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 成人三级黄色视频| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 午夜老司机福利片| or卡值多少钱| av在线播放免费不卡| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 青草久久国产| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 久久草成人影院| 制服诱惑二区| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 波多野结衣高清作品| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 黄片播放在线免费| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 91老司机精品| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产激情久久老熟女| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 免费看日本二区| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| aaaaa片日本免费| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 在线看三级毛片| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 成人国语在线视频| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 免费观看精品视频网站| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产黄片美女视频| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观 | 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 很黄的视频免费| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 黄片播放在线免费| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 一本综合久久免费| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 国产野战对白在线观看| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 长腿黑丝高跟| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 亚洲av电影在线进入| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 91国产中文字幕| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 久久草成人影院| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 怎么达到女性高潮| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 免费看日本二区| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 操出白浆在线播放| 性欧美人与动物交配| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线 | 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 日韩有码中文字幕| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 一级黄色大片毛片| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产亚洲欧美98| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 亚洲第一青青草原| 69av精品久久久久久| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 香蕉av资源在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 香蕉久久夜色| 最好的美女福利视频网| 亚洲无线在线观看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| av中文乱码字幕在线| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产成人av教育| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 色综合站精品国产| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观 | netflix在线观看网站| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 午夜老司机福利片| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产成人精品无人区| 91大片在线观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合 | 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 无限看片的www在线观看| 美女大奶头视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 久久人妻av系列| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看 | 日韩欧美免费精品| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 成人国产综合亚洲| 亚洲激情在线av| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产精品野战在线观看| 自线自在国产av| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 男人操女人黄网站| 麻豆一二三区av精品| www日本黄色视频网| cao死你这个sao货| 级片在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 日本 av在线| 国产精华一区二区三区| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| www.自偷自拍.com| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 999精品在线视频| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| www日本在线高清视频| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 级片在线观看| 亚洲 国产 在线| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 精品人妻1区二区| 日本 欧美在线| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 日韩高清综合在线| 精品高清国产在线一区| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播 | 成人午夜高清在线视频 | 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 久久香蕉激情| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 免费av毛片视频| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 久久这里只有精品19| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 色综合站精品国产| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 变态另类丝袜制服| 成年免费大片在线观看| 少妇 在线观看| 国产精品九九99| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 我的亚洲天堂| 美女大奶头视频| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 成人国产综合亚洲| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 国产成人欧美| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 黄片播放在线免费| 精品久久久久久,| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 色综合婷婷激情| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 美女午夜性视频免费| 在线观看日韩欧美| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 在线免费观看的www视频| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 一区二区三区激情视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 超碰成人久久| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| xxx96com| 国产高清激情床上av| 成人国语在线视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 午夜精品在线福利| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 自线自在国产av| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 哪里可以看免费的av片| 国产视频内射| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产精品久久视频播放| 午夜两性在线视频| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 欧美日韩精品网址| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 久热这里只有精品99| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 老司机靠b影院| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| av在线天堂中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 成人三级黄色视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 精品久久久久久久末码| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | av视频在线观看入口| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产单亲对白刺激| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 日日夜夜操网爽| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 午夜免费激情av| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| www.自偷自拍.com| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 91国产中文字幕| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 久久久久国内视频| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| www日本在线高清视频| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| av电影中文网址| 露出奶头的视频| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 免费观看精品视频网站| www.999成人在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久中文看片网| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 成人三级做爰电影| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 国产日本99.免费观看| 97碰自拍视频| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 自线自在国产av| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 午夜福利高清视频| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 999久久久国产精品视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 999久久久国产精品视频| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 亚洲全国av大片| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 97碰自拍视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 在线av久久热| 搡老岳熟女国产| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 久热这里只有精品99| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 99热只有精品国产| 我的亚洲天堂| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 一区二区三区精品91| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| av中文乱码字幕在线| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 黄色视频不卡| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 久久亚洲真实| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观 | 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 亚洲第一电影网av| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 69av精品久久久久久| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国产色视频综合| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 国产高清videossex| 天堂√8在线中文| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| a在线观看视频网站| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 成人手机av| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 中文资源天堂在线| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲成人久久性|