两种风险评估模型在结直肠癌筛查中应用效果的比较研究

doi:10.11904/j.issn.1002-3070.2022.03.001

实用肿瘤学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (3): 197-202.doi: 10.11904/j.issn.1002-3070.2022.03.001

• 癌症筛查 • 下一篇

两种风险评估模型在结直肠癌筛查中应用效果的比较研究

李博¹, 彭晓琳¹, 王珊珊¹, 李改瑞¹, 赵丹¹, 彭绩²

1.深圳市南山区慢性病防治院肿瘤伤害与营养科(深圳 518054);
2.深圳市慢性病防治中心肿瘤防治科

收稿日期:2021-04-23 修回日期:2022-03-03 出版日期:2022-06-28 发布日期:2022-06-28
通讯作者: 赵丹,E-mail:xiaodan16320@163.com
作者简介:李博,男,(1979-),硕士,副主任技师,从事疾病检验相关的研究。
基金资助:
深圳市卫计委资助项目(编号:SZGW2017011);南山区卫生科技计划项目(编号:南科研卫2017007号、2019054号)

Comparative study on application effect of two risk assessment models in screening colorectal cancer

LI Bo¹, PENG Xiaolin¹, WANG Shanshan¹, LI Gairui¹, ZHAO Dan¹, PENG Ji²

1. Department of Tumor,Injury and Nutrition,Shenzhen Nanshan Center for Chronic Disease Control,Shenzhen 518054,China;
2. Department of Tumor Prevention,Shenzhen Center for Chronic Disease Control

Received:2021-04-23 Revised:2022-03-03 Online:2022-06-28 Published:2022-06-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较两种风险评估模型在结直肠癌早期筛查中的应用效果,探讨更适用于我国居民结直肠癌早期筛查的评估模型。方法以2017—2019年参加深圳市南山区城市癌症早诊早治项目的40~74岁常住居民为研究对象,采用两种风险评估模型对同一人群进行结直肠癌风险评估,比较不同模型的筛查效果和预测价值。结果共纳入4 141例研究对象,平均年龄(56.4±9.0)岁。模型一、模型二的初筛阳性率分别为15.2%和21.3%,总体一致率为93.50%(Kappa值=0.784,P＜0.001)。702例肠镜检查者中,肠炎、息肉、腺瘤、肠癌、其他肠道病变的检出率分别为12.5%、12.0%、15.8%、0.7%、30.7%,两种模型初筛阳性者的肠镜检查结果分布无统计学差异(χ²=8.679,P=0.123)。模型一的灵敏度为 45.7%,低于模型二(61.2%);而模型一的特异度(64.8%)、阳性预测值(76.7%)、Kappa值(0.081)、约登指数(0.103)均高于模型二(41.7%、72.6%、0.026、0.029)。两种模型的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.660(95% CI:0.618~0.702)和0.675(95% CI:0.634~0.715),两者之间无统计学差异(P=0.584)。结论两种风险评估模型对结直肠癌早期诊断均具有一定的预测能力和优势,但在筛查准确度和筛查效益方面,模型一稍优于模型二,在大规模人群筛查中,建议两种模型取长补短,综合应用。

关键词: 结直肠癌, 风险评估模型, 筛查, 早诊早治

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to compare the application effects of two risk assessment models in the early screening of colorectal cancer,and to explore an evaluation model that was more suitable for the early screening of colorectal cancer in Chinese residents. Methods The 40-74 years old permanent residents who participated in the urban cancer early diagnosis and early treatment project in Nanshan District,Shenzhen from 2017 to 2019 were selected as the research subjects.Two risk assessment models were used to assess the risk of colorectal cancer in the same population and compare the screening performance and predicted value. Results A total of 4 141 participants were included,with an average age of 56.4±9.0 years old.The positive rates of model 1 and model 2 were 15.2% and 21.3%,respectively,and the overall agreement rate was 93.50%(Kappa value=0.784,P＜0.001).Among 702 colonoscopy examiners,the detection rates of enteritis,polyps,adenomas,CRC,and other intestinal lesions were 12.5%,12.0%,15.8%,0.7%,and 30.7%,respectively.There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of colonoscopy results(χ²=8.679,P=0.123).The sensitivity of model 1 was 45.7%,which was lower than that of model 2(61.2%);while the specificity(64.8%),positive predictive value(76.7%),Kappa value(0.081)and Youden index(0.103)were higher than those in model 2(41.7%,72.6%,0.026 and 0.029).The areas under the ROC curves for the two models were 0.660(95% CI:0.618-0.702)and 0.675(95%CI:0.634-0.715),respectively,and there was no significant difference(P=0.584). Conclusion Both RAMs have certain predictive power and advantages for early diagnosis of CRC,but model 1 is slightly better than model 2 in terms of screening accuracy and screening benefit.In large-scale population screening,it is recommended the two models learn from each other′s strengths and complement their weaknesses,and are comprehensively applied.

Key words: Colorectal cancer, Risk assessment model, Screening, Early diagnosis and early treatment

中图分类号:

R735.3

李博, 彭晓琳, 王珊珊, 李改瑞, 赵丹, 彭绩. 两种风险评估模型在结直肠癌筛查中应用效果的比较研究[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 36(3): 197-202.

LI Bo, PENG Xiaolin, WANG Shanshan, LI Gairui, ZHAO Dan, PENG Ji. Comparative study on application effect of two risk assessment models in screening colorectal cancer[J]. Journal of Practical Oncology, 2022, 36(3): 197-202.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: http://journal09.magtechjournal.com/Jwk3_syzlxzz/CN/10.11904/j.issn.1002-3070.2022.03.001

http://journal09.magtechjournal.com/Jwk3_syzlxzz/CN/Y2022/V36/I3/197

参考文献

1 International Agency for Research on Cancer.Latest global cancer data:Cancer burden rises to 19.3 million new cases and 10.0 million cancer deaths in 2020.Available online:https://www.iarc.fr/faq/latest-global-cancer-data-2020-qa/(accessed on 15 December 2020).
2 Smith Robert A,Andrews Kimberly S,Brooks D,et al.Cancer screening in the United States,2019:a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening[J].CA:A Cancer J Clin,2019,69(3):184-210.
3 Ladabaum U,Dominitz JA,Kahi C,et al.Strategies for colorectal cancer screening[J].Gastroenterology,2020,158(2):418-432.
4 代敏,石菊芳,李霓.中国城市癌症早诊早治项目设计及预期目标[J].中华预防医学杂志,2013,(2):179-182.
5 Kim DJ,Rockhill B,Colditz GA.Validation of the harvard cancer risk index:a prediction tool for individual cancer risk[J].J Clin Epide,2004,57(4):332-340.
6 李鹏,王拥军,陈光勇,等.中国早期结直肠癌及癌前病变筛查与诊治共识[J].中国实用内科杂志,2015,35(3):211-227.
7 Maida M,Macaluso FS,Ianiro G,et al.Screening of colorectal cancer:present and future[J].Expert Rev Anticanc,2017,17(12):1131-1146.
8 朱晓云,张亚宁,马碧萍.1980—2018 年上海市金山区结直肠癌死亡水平及其所致早死概率的趋势分析[J].实用肿瘤学杂志,2020,34(3):198-202.
9 Williams CD,Grady WM,Zullig LL.Use of NCCN guidelines,other guidelines,and biomarkers for colorectal cancer screening[J].J Natl Canc Netw,2016,14(11):1479-1485.
10 Colditz GA,Atwood KA,Emmons K,et al.Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4:harvard cancer risk index.risk index working group,harvard center for cancer prevention[J].Cancer Cause Control,2000,11(6):477-488.
11 Yikyung P,Nathan FA,H GM et al.Validation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction model among white patients age 50 years and older[J].J Clin Oncol,2009,27(5):694-698.
12 Tao S,Hoffmeister M,Brenner H.Development and validation of a scoring system to identify individuals at high risk for advanced colorectal neoplasms who should undergo colonoscopy screening[J].Clin Gastroenterol H,2014,12(12):2135-2136.
13 Cai QC,Yu ED,Xiao Y,et al.Derivation and validation of a prediction rule for estimating advanced colorectal neoplasm risk in average-risk Chinese[J].Am J Epidemiol,2012,175(6):584-593.
14 冯正平,梁杏花,李海艳.186例社区大肠癌筛查阳性患者的肠镜精筛结果分析[J].新医学,2020,51(8):637-641.
15 郑树,张苏展,黄彦钦.结直肠癌研究30年回顾和现状[J].实用肿瘤杂志,2016,31(1):2-5.

[1]	陈素, 隋红. 抗HER2治疗在转移性结直肠癌中的研究进展[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 36(3): 288-292.
[2]	肖海帆, 颜仕鹏, 李佶刚, 石朝晖, 邹艳花, 许可葵, 廖先珍. 湖南省2017—2018年肺癌低剂量螺旋CT筛查结果和依从性分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 36(2): 99-104.
[3]	陈函, 罗晓勇, 李朝萍, 郭彩茹, 鞠文翠, 翟秧秧, 师鑫鹏. lncRNA CASC2对结直肠癌细胞功能及血管生成的影响[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 36(2): 111-118.
[4]	徐慧芳, 刘茵, 赵冬梅, 罗艳林, 陈佩佩, 郭珍, 贾漫漫, 郑黎阳, 张璐瑶, 李梦洁, 张韶凯. 新型国产杂交捕获HPV检测技术在ASC-US人群分流中的应用效果评价[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 36(2): 133-136.
[5]	王朗玥, 赵琦, 吴华星. 肠道微生物群衍生的代谢产物调控结直肠癌的新进展[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(6): 547-551.
[6]	周天虹, 顾秀瑛, 姚芳, 宋述铭. 乌鲁木齐市2014—2018年度乳腺癌筛查结果分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(5): 391-395.
[7]	韩淑玲, 姚洋, 刘超, 张艳桥. 肠道微生物影响结直肠癌化疗疗效的研究现状[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(5): 476-479.
[8]	秦朝, 李江, 郑亚迪, 王飞, 曹巍, 许永杰, 余一雯, 赵亮, 于欣阳, 陈宏达, 任建松, 王勇, 李静, 李霓, 陈万青. 中国城市乳腺癌高危人群筛查依从性及其相关因素分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 291-296.
[9]	庹吉妤, 张霞, 何晓梅, 姜文珍, 冯觉平, 金霞, 张敏, 魏少忠. 湖北省2018-2019年城市癌症早诊早治项目筛查结果分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 297-301.
[10]	李晴雨, 杨雷, 张希, 刘硕, 李慧超, 张倩, 程杨杨, 季加孚, 王宁. 新冠肺炎疫情下癌症早诊早治管理工作探讨[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 302-306.
[11]	郭兰伟, 张韶凯, 刘曙正, 郑黎阳, 陈琼, 曹小琴, 孙喜斌, 张建功. 河南省城市地区乳腺癌筛查依从性及其影响因素分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 307-313.
[12]	黄锐, 刘超, 张艳桥. 辛伐他汀用于结直肠癌治疗的系统综述[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 365-369.
[13]	刘文, 乔文波. 程序性死亡蛋白1及其配体在结直肠癌中的临床研究现状[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 370-375.
[14]	朱公建, 朱奕潼, 丁高恒, 王宏宗, 杜美霞, 刘玉琴. 2009—2015年甘肃省肿瘤登记地区结直肠癌流性特征及变化趋势分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(3): 212-217.
[15]	魏东华, 马艳玲, 张娟, 尹惠萍, 张小鹏, 张愉涵, 代敏, 钱立庭. 2014-2016年合肥市城市居民肺癌筛查率及筛查结果分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 35(3): 231-236.

两种风险评估模型在结直肠癌筛查中应用效果的比较研究

Comparative study on application effect of two risk assessment models in screening colorectal cancer

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价