切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (04) : 446 -448. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.04.025.

论著

结直肠癌早期筛查的实验室检测策略及临床价值分析
安霞1, 石玉生2, 宋智心1,()   
  1. 1. 102300 北京,北京市门头沟中医医院检验科
    2. 102300 北京,北京市门头沟区医院普通外科
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-21 出版日期:2025-08-26
  • 通信作者: 宋智心

Analysis of laboratory detection strategies and clinical value for early screening of colorectal cancer

Xia An1, Yusheng Shi2, Zhixin Song1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Mentougou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing 102300, China
    2. Department of General Surgery, Mentougou District Hospital, Beijing 102300, China
  • Received:2025-03-21 Published:2025-08-26
  • Corresponding author: Zhixin Song
引用本文:

安霞, 石玉生, 宋智心. 结直肠癌早期筛查的实验室检测策略及临床价值分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 446-448.

Xia An, Yusheng Shi, Zhixin Song. Analysis of laboratory detection strategies and clinical value for early screening of colorectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(04): 446-448.

目的

分析结直肠癌(CRC)早期筛查的实验室检测策略及临床价值。

方法

回顾性分析2021年1月至2024年12月门头沟中医医院和门头沟区医院收治的300例结直肠癌患者(结直肠癌组)及100例健康对照者(对照组)的实验室检测数据,采用SPSS 23.0处理数据。癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原19-9(CA19-9)、血小板-淋巴细胞比值(PLR)和中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比值(NLR)等计量资料以()表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验;计数资料用百分比表示,采用χ2检验。P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。

结果

结直肠癌组粪便潜血试验(FOBT)的阳性率为85.3%,对照组为11.0%, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),CEA、CA19-9水平及PLR、NLR值均显著高于对照组(P<0.001);粪便潜血试验(FOBT)、肿瘤标志物(CEA、CA19-9)及全身炎症反应指标(PLR、NLR)联合检测的敏感性达92.2%,特异性达88.5%(AUC=0.933),显著优于单项检测(P<0.05)。

结论

实验室联合检测(FOBT+肿瘤标志物+炎症指标)可显著提升结直肠癌筛查效能。

Objective

To analyze the laboratory detection strategies and clinical value for the early screening of colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

The laboratory detection data of 300 patients with colorectal cancer (colorectal cancer group) admitted to Mentougou Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital and Mentougou District Hospital from January 2021 to December 2024 and 100 healthy controls (control group) were retrospectively analyzed. The data were processed using SPSS 23.0. Measurement data such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR),and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were expressed as (), and the independent sample t test was used for comparison between groups; Enumeration data were expressed as percentages, and the chi-square test was used. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The positive rate of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in the colorectal cancer group was 85.3%, and that in the control group was 11.0%, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The levels of CEA and CA19-9, as well as the values of PLR and NLR, were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.001); The combined detection of fecal occult blood test (FOBT), tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9), and systemic inflammatory response indicators (PLR,NLR) had a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 88.5% (AUC=0.933), which was significantly better than single-item detection (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The combined laboratory detection (FOBT + tumor markers +inflammatory indicators) can significantly improve the screening efficiency of colorectal cancer.

表1 两组患者一般资料比较
表2 两组患者检测指标比较
表3 检测指标诊断效能比较
[1]
杜晓辉,杨华夏. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌手术30年术式变迁与发展[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2021, 15(01): 10-13.
[2]
徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[3]
国家卫生健康委员会医疗应急司. 结直肠癌筛查与早诊早治方案(2024版)[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志,2024, 46(10): 917-918.
[4]
Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Jensen CD, et al. Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2024, 7(7): e2423671.
[5]
周月阳,李娜,陆斌,等. 粪便免疫化学检测在结直肠癌筛查中的价值[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志,2023, 45(11): 911-918.
[6]
李明,王芳. 肿瘤标志物联合检测在结直肠癌诊断中的价值[J]. 中华检验医学杂志,2023, 46(05): 489-494.
[7]
梁艳,王兰兰,吴丽娟,等. 肿瘤标志物CEA和CA19-9在消化系统恶性肿瘤中的诊断效率评价[J]. 中国实验诊断学,2016,11:1317-1321.
[8]
赵芳,陈廷昊,陈泳松,等. NLR和PLR对胰腺癌患者术后生存的影响[J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志,2024, 10(11): 12-15.
[9]
Hu X, Tian T, Sun Q, et al. Prognostic value of the neutrophilto-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in laryngeal cancer: What should we expect from a meta-analysis?[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 10: 945820.
[10]
Zhu Y, Bi Y, Liu B, et al. Assessment of prognostic value of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for postoperative mortality and morbidity [J]. Front Med, 2023, 10: 1102733.
[1] 王浩瑜, 杨拴元, 任彦顺, 阴志强. 两种改良食管空肠吻合术的腹腔镜全胃切除术中临床对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 425-428.
[2] 林炳涛, 陈君填. 不同病理类型进展期胃癌患者临床特征及腹腔镜辅助根治术后短期预后的影响因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 429-433.
[3] 杨维军, 张文文, 付凯. 单切口腹腔镜下胃癌根治术治疗早中期胃癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 434-437.
[4] 党立力, 张流, 周鹏, 周华友, 赵伟. 保留左结肠动脉(升支)腹腔镜直肠癌全系膜切除术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 442-445.
[5] 王小贝, 吕庆福, 倪婷. 免充气腋窝入路与全乳晕入路腔镜下甲状腺癌根治术的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 368-371.
[6] 梁承友, 刘翼, 姚德炯, 朱明, 廖介. 三角入路在局部晚期直肠癌盆腔脏器联合切除术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 392-395.
[7] 赵军抗, 张前进, 庄惠杰. 不同导向解剖入路腹腔镜根治术治疗早期直肠癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 401-404.
[8] 杨梦媛, 白启轩, 赵晓琳, 黄坤, 李珍, 曹世长, 程建平. ESD治疗腔内突出型结直肠肿瘤与大肠侧向发育型肿瘤的临床效果对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 405-408.
[9] 辛林璞, 杨敏, 杜峻峰. 五定四观察循证方案对直肠癌造口患者生活质量与应用效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 409-412.
[10] 王珂, 岳育民, 武珍珍, 许泽宇, 惠晓辉, 赵云, 窦维佳, 赵青川. 腹腔镜经自然腔道手术对结直肠癌患者肠道功能及远期效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 413-416.
[11] 沈锋, 王葵, 刘建伟. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术治疗现状、问题与发展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 237-240.
[12] 蔡建强, 毕新宇, 徐博文. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术的难点与对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 241-244.
[13] 王占奎, 陈治远, 孙闻晖, 杨庆玲, 杨小斌. 术前免疫炎症指数及AFU水平对肝癌患者介入术后早期复发的预测研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 247-250.
[14] 盛海涛, 窦明睿, 王俊杰, 修小龙, 杨建茂, 董长城. 基于CT三维可视化技术的个体化肝分段在解剖性肝切除术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 258-261.
[15] 焦振东, 金上博. 腹腔镜肝癌切除术治疗肝癌破裂出血[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 641-641.
阅读次数
全文


摘要