中文摘要：

目的：蟾灵膏是国医大师刘尚义教授自制膏方，具有行气活血，养阴扶正的作用，可用于西医诊断的各种良、恶性肿瘤。本文通过临床实验观察国医大师刘尚义教授自制膏方蟾灵膏对气滞血瘀型肿瘤患者中医症状、生活质量、Kamofsky行为状况（以下简称KPS评分）、体质量的影响。方法：将中医诊断为气滞血瘀型的住院肿瘤患者160例，随机分为两组，实验组100例，对照组60例，实验组为服用蟾灵膏组，对照组为未服用蟾灵膏组，实验期间不得服用具有相同功效的其他中药制剂。所有蟾灵膏均由贵阳中医学院第一附属医院膏方熬制室提供，服用方法：早晚各一次，每次3g，放入热水中化开后口服，30天为一个疗程。治疗后比较两组前后中医症状积分变化，生活质量积分变化，KPS评分变化及体重评分变化，并比较两组安全指标的变化。结果：两组治疗前后中医临床症状积分比较，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。两组治疗前后生活质量积分比较，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。两组治疗前后的KPS评分比较，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。两组治疗前后体重计数比较，差异不具有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组治疗后安全性指标比较，差异不具有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：蟾灵膏从人体的基本物质气血出发，行气活血以祛邪，同时兼顾养血滋阴以扶正，可以调理患者整体，缓解患者症状，改善患者生活质量，临床使用安全。

英文摘要：

Objecitve： Chanling Gao, made by Prof. Liu Shangyi, the Chinese national medical master, has the function of promoting qi and activating blood, nourishing yin and strengthening healthy qi, for a variety of benign and malignant tumors diagnosed by Western medicine. In this paper, the effect of Chanling Gao on the the symptom of Chinese medicine, the quality of life and the Karnofsky performance status assessment （ KPS score） , and body weight of the patients with tumor caused by Qi - stagnation and Blood - stasis syndrome were observed through trails. Methods： 160 hospitalized patients with tumor caused by Qi -stagnation and Blood - stasis syndrome were randomly divided into two groups： a experimental group with 100 cases and a control group with 60 cases. The experimental group was given Chanling Gao, while the control group was not. During the ex- periment, other traditional Chinese medicines with similar effect were forbidden. All Chanling Gao was provided by The First Affiliated Hospital of Guiyang University of CM. The herbal extract was taken twice a day, with 3g dissolved in the hot water for oral each time. 30 days was for a course of treatment. The integral change of the TCM symptoms, scores changes of the quality of life, KPS score and weight of the patients in the two groups were compared before and after treatment. Results ： Compared the clinical symptoms of traditional Chinese med- icine between the two groups before and after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0.01 ）. Compared the quality of life between the two groups before and after treatment, the difference was statis- tically significant （P 〈 0. 01 ）. Compared the KPS scores before and after treatment in the two groups, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈0.01 ）. Compared the body weight before and after treatment in the two groups, the difference was not statistically significant （P 〈 0. 05 ）. Compared the safety indicators of treatment, the difference was not statis