• <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

    亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产高清三级在线| 少妇高潮的动态图| av播播在线观看一区| 日韩av免费高清视频| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 舔av片在线| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 国产综合精华液| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 亚洲av男天堂| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 极品教师在线视频| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 欧美另类一区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 精品久久久精品久久久| av线在线观看网站| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 午夜免费观看性视频| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 一级片'在线观看视频| 久久午夜福利片| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产亚洲最大av| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| eeuss影院久久| 观看美女的网站| 色视频www国产| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲精品视频女| 国产亚洲最大av| 韩国av在线不卡| 成人欧美大片| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国产不卡一卡二| 精品久久久久久久久av| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 亚洲av福利一区| 五月天丁香电影| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 久久久国产一区二区| 久久久久网色| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 97在线视频观看| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 久久久久性生活片| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 深夜a级毛片| 免费观看性生交大片5| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 热99在线观看视频| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 观看免费一级毛片| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网 | 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 在线免费十八禁| av线在线观看网站| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 九九在线视频观看精品| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 成年av动漫网址| 日本一本二区三区精品| 亚洲精品一二三| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲色图av天堂| 全区人妻精品视频| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 热99在线观看视频| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| av在线亚洲专区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| a级毛色黄片| 久久草成人影院| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 日本熟妇午夜| 久久这里只有精品中国| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 欧美成人a在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产av不卡久久| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲色图av天堂| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 久久国产乱子免费精品| 一级毛片我不卡| 成人综合一区亚洲| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| av在线天堂中文字幕| 中文字幕制服av| 欧美区成人在线视频| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 欧美区成人在线视频| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 热99在线观看视频| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 久久久久久久久久成人| 久久久久久久久大av| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 97热精品久久久久久| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 精品久久久噜噜| av播播在线观看一区| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| freevideosex欧美| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品无大码| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 成人欧美大片| 在线观看一区二区三区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频 | 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 三级经典国产精品| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 九草在线视频观看| 免费观看av网站的网址| ponron亚洲| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 777米奇影视久久| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 成人国产麻豆网| 男女国产视频网站| 成年免费大片在线观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产在视频线在精品| 免费观看av网站的网址| 亚洲内射少妇av| 简卡轻食公司| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 99热网站在线观看| av在线播放精品| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 永久免费av网站大全| 一级毛片 在线播放| 日本一二三区视频观看| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 国产午夜精品论理片| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 日韩欧美三级三区| 婷婷色av中文字幕| ponron亚洲| 六月丁香七月| av在线亚洲专区| 777米奇影视久久| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲色图av天堂| 搡老乐熟女国产| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 舔av片在线| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 久久这里只有精品中国| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 男女边摸边吃奶| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 欧美+日韩+精品| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 亚洲图色成人| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 秋霞伦理黄片| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 午夜免费观看性视频| 精品久久久久久电影网| 一级av片app| 国产高潮美女av| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 在线播放无遮挡| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 69av精品久久久久久| 免费看不卡的av| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 91久久精品电影网| 禁无遮挡网站| 免费av不卡在线播放| 免费大片18禁| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 永久网站在线| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产色婷婷99| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 日本午夜av视频| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 国产乱人视频| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 伦精品一区二区三区| 97在线视频观看| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 日本与韩国留学比较| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 午夜激情欧美在线| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲四区av| 在线a可以看的网站| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 日韩欧美 国产精品| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 黄色日韩在线| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 精品午夜福利在线看| 午夜久久久久精精品| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 免费观看a级毛片全部| a级毛色黄片| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| av在线观看视频网站免费| 一级a做视频免费观看| 久久久久网色| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 韩国av在线不卡| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 亚洲av男天堂| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 91av网一区二区| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 高清av免费在线| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 日韩电影二区| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 赤兔流量卡办理| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| or卡值多少钱| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 黄色配什么色好看| 六月丁香七月| 日本免费在线观看一区| 日本欧美国产在线视频| av网站免费在线观看视频 | 插逼视频在线观看| 老司机影院成人| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 成年人午夜在线观看视频 | 日本一二三区视频观看| 1000部很黄的大片| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产在视频线精品| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 夫妻午夜视频| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 色播亚洲综合网| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 成人无遮挡网站| 在线天堂最新版资源| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 亚洲精品第二区| 国产av在哪里看| 91精品国产九色| 欧美bdsm另类| 午夜久久久久精精品| xxx大片免费视频| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 观看美女的网站| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 色哟哟·www| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 免费观看性生交大片5| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 中文天堂在线官网| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 日韩中字成人| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 黑人高潮一二区| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 嫩草影院新地址| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 午夜日本视频在线| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 老女人水多毛片| 一级片'在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 如何舔出高潮| av免费在线看不卡| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产成人精品福利久久| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 日日撸夜夜添| 秋霞伦理黄片| 免费观看性生交大片5| 国产老妇女一区| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 美女黄网站色视频| 97超碰精品成人国产| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产精品无大码| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲综合精品二区| 男人舔奶头视频| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 欧美成人a在线观看| 永久免费av网站大全| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲av男天堂| 免费av观看视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 欧美bdsm另类| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 色综合站精品国产| 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲国产色片| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产成人精品一,二区| 亚洲最大成人av| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产视频首页在线观看| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 黄片wwwwww| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| av.在线天堂| 欧美3d第一页| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 中文资源天堂在线| 一本久久精品| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| videos熟女内射| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 中文资源天堂在线| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 简卡轻食公司| freevideosex欧美| 美女高潮的动态| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 99热全是精品| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 内射极品少妇av片p| 久久久国产一区二区| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| h日本视频在线播放| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 色吧在线观看| 欧美潮喷喷水| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 国产精品.久久久| 成人无遮挡网站| 插逼视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 极品教师在线视频| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产不卡一卡二| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 成人欧美大片| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 永久网站在线| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 久久99精品国语久久久| 久热久热在线精品观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 一级a做视频免费观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 床上黄色一级片| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 一级毛片电影观看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 精品久久久久久成人av| 欧美性感艳星| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 欧美zozozo另类| 午夜福利在线在线| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 能在线免费看毛片的网站|