【摘要】：胃癌是最常見的消化道腫瘤之一。胃癌的發(fā)生與飲食生活習(xí)慣密切相關(guān)。血清胃功能,包括血清胃泌素-17和胃蛋白酶原,在西方國(guó)家又稱為GastroPanel,常用于無創(chuàng)的胃癌篩查,但篩查效能存在爭(zhēng)議。通過基于院內(nèi)人群的大樣本、連續(xù)病例的全國(guó)多中心橫斷面研究,進(jìn)行了胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素的調(diào)查與分析,分析了血清胃功能與胃癌的相關(guān)性,確立了血清胃功能指標(biāo)用于胃癌篩查的最佳界限值,建立了基于胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素和血清胃功能指標(biāo)的胃癌風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及評(píng)分系統(tǒng),初步探索出胃癌篩查策略。一、胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素調(diào)查及分析(一)研究目的進(jìn)行胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素調(diào)查,較全面分析飲食、生活習(xí)慣和代謝綜合征等因素與胃癌的相關(guān)性,為建立胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型提供依據(jù)。(二)研究方法基于院內(nèi)人群的橫斷面研究。采用問卷調(diào)查方式,調(diào)查研究對(duì)象諸如飲食、生活習(xí)慣及代謝綜合征等胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素。所有研究對(duì)象均按照問卷調(diào)查、抽血化驗(yàn)和胃鏡精查等流程操作。以胃鏡及病理診斷作為最后診斷的金標(biāo)準(zhǔn),本研究共納入病例12961例,包括非胃癌組12637例和胃癌組324例。采用logistic回歸和卡方檢驗(yàn)等統(tǒng)計(jì)方法進(jìn)行分析。(三)結(jié)果1、病例特征本研究共入組病例12961例,包括非胃癌組12637例和胃癌組324例。非胃癌組包括非萎縮性胃炎5401例、萎縮性胃炎2950例(其中低級(jí)別上皮內(nèi)瘤變282例)和其他診斷(包括消化性潰瘍、反流性食管炎和胃息肉等)4286例。胃癌組包括早期胃癌127例(39.20%)和進(jìn)展期胃癌197例(60.80%)。平均年齡為57.29±9.628。女性和男性病例分別為6545例(50.5%)和6416例(49.5%)。有癥狀和無癥狀的患者分別為10571例(81.6%)和2390例(18.4%)。2、胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素的單因素分析本研究結(jié)果表明,男性、高齡、吸煙、飲酒、經(jīng)常攝入隔夜菜、飲食偏咸、經(jīng)常攝入腌煎熏制食品和體重指數(shù)偏瘦是胃癌高危因素,經(jīng)常攝入新鮮蔬菜水果是胃癌的保護(hù)因素。胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)隨著年齡增大而增大。飲酒習(xí)慣是胃癌發(fā)生的高危因素,且隨著飲酒量和飲酒年數(shù)增加而增加。對(duì)于女性人群糖尿病和高甘油三酯人群胃癌檢出率較高,但差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,因此代謝綜合征與胃癌相關(guān)性并不顯著。3、胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素的多因素分析經(jīng)多因素logistic回歸分析后,性別、年齡、體重指數(shù)、飲食咸淡習(xí)慣、煎炸食品攝入、腌制食品攝入是胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素,新鮮水果攝入為胃癌保護(hù)因素。logistic回歸模型的擬合優(yōu)度和區(qū)分度良好。roc曲線下面積為0.737(95%ci:0.708-0.766)(p0.001)。(四)小結(jié)本研究通過大規(guī)模流行病學(xué)調(diào)查,較全面分析了飲食、生活習(xí)慣與胃癌的相關(guān)性,初步探討了代謝綜合征與胃癌相關(guān)性。經(jīng)多因素logistic回歸分析可知,男性、高齡、偏瘦、飲食偏咸、經(jīng)常攝入腌制食品、經(jīng)常攝入煎炸食品是胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素,經(jīng)常攝入新鮮水果是胃癌保護(hù)因素。二、血清胃功能與胃癌相關(guān)性及篩查效能分析(一)研究目的探討血清胃功能與胃癌相關(guān)性,確定血清胃功能用于胃癌篩查的界限值,評(píng)估血清胃功能用于胃癌篩查的效能。(二)研究方法基于院內(nèi)人群的橫斷面研究。用elisa法空腹檢測(cè)血清胃功能(包括血清胃泌素-17、胃蛋白酶原Ⅰ和胃蛋白酶原Ⅱ等),然后行胃鏡精查及活檢。以胃鏡及病理診斷作為金標(biāo)準(zhǔn),納入病例12961例,包括非萎縮性胃炎5401例、萎縮性胃炎2950例(其中低級(jí)別上皮內(nèi)瘤變282例)、早期胃癌127例、進(jìn)展期胃癌197例和其他診斷4286例。采用非參數(shù)檢驗(yàn)、卡方檢驗(yàn)、roc曲線下面積分析和logistic回歸分析等多種統(tǒng)計(jì)方法。(三)結(jié)果1、血清胃功能與胃癌相關(guān)性分析與非胃癌組相比,胃癌組的血清胃泌素-17水平較高,血清胃蛋白酶原Ⅱ較高,而pgr較低;與非萎縮性胃炎組相比,萎縮性胃炎組血清胃蛋白酶原Ⅰ和pgr較低。2、血清胃功能對(duì)胃癌的篩查效能分析血清胃泌素-17、胃蛋白酶原Ⅱ和pgr是篩查胃癌的可靠血清學(xué)指標(biāo),三者的roc曲線下面積分別為0.621(95%ci:0.593-0.649)、0.622(95%ci:0.592-0.652)和0.643(95%ci:0.611-0.675)(p值0.001),最佳診斷界限值分別為3.61pmol/l、12.00ug/l和9.42。血清胃功能單項(xiàng)診斷中,血清胃泌素-17的敏感度最高(70.1%),而pgr的特異度最高(65.3%)。血清胃泌素-17診斷胃癌的敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值、準(zhǔn)確度分別為70.1%(227/324)、51.4%(6499/12637)、3.6%(227/6365)、98.5%(6499/6596)和51.89%(6726/12961)。血清胃蛋白酶原Ⅱ診斷胃癌的敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為58.6%(190/324)、62.5%(7892/12637)、3.9%(190/4935)、98.3%(7892/8026)和63.96%(8082/12961)。pgr診斷胃癌的敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值、準(zhǔn)確度分別為58.3%(189/324)、65.3%(8257/12637)、4.1%(189/4569)、98.4%(8257/8392)和64.65%(8446/12961)。血清胃功能聯(lián)合診斷中,血清胃泌素-17聯(lián)合pgr的診斷效能較好。當(dāng)s-g-17聯(lián)合pgr(即s-g-173.61pmol/l且pgr9.42)診斷胃癌時(shí),敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為44.1%(143/324)、77.0%(9736/12637)、4.7%(143/3044)、98.2%(9736/9917)和76.22%(9879/12961)。當(dāng)s-g-17聯(lián)合pgⅡ(即s-g-173.61pmol/l且pgⅡ12ug/l)診斷胃癌時(shí),敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為43.5%(141/324)、73.0%(9230/12637)、4.0%(141/3548)、98.1%(9230/9413)和72.3%(9371/12961)。3、血清胃功能對(duì)預(yù)測(cè)胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的評(píng)價(jià)由胃泌素-17和胃蛋白酶原聯(lián)合的血清胃功能abc法,可以預(yù)測(cè)胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn),篩選出胃癌高危人群。把pgr9.42視為pgr陽性(+),pgr≥9.42視為pgr陰性(-);把s-g-173.61pmol/l視為g-17陽性(+),s-g-17≤3.61pmol/l視為g-17陰性(-)。根據(jù)上述判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),所有研究對(duì)象依據(jù)血清胃功能結(jié)果分為a、b和c三組,a組為血清胃功能雙陰性,b組為血清胃功能單陽性,c組為血清胃功能雙陽性。分析結(jié)果表明,a、b和c三組的胃癌檢出率分別為1.0%(51/5071)、2.7%(130/4846)和4.7%(143/3044);各組的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)從a組至c組依次增加,其中a組的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最低而c組的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最高。與a組相比,b組、c組兩組的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)or值分別為2.532(95%:1.823-3.515)和4.392(95%:3.171-6.084)(p值0.001)。(四)小結(jié)通過大樣本、連續(xù)病例的橫斷面研究,確定了針對(duì)院內(nèi)人群血清胃功能篩查胃癌的最佳界限值,提出了預(yù)測(cè)胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的血清胃功能abc法。本研究結(jié)果表明,血清胃泌素-17、胃蛋白酶原Ⅱ和pgr是篩查胃癌的可靠血清學(xué)指標(biāo),血清胃泌素-17聯(lián)合pgr篩查胃癌的效能最佳;血清胃功能abc法可以篩查出胃癌高危人群,c組發(fā)生胃癌風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最大。三、基于胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素和血清胃功能的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及其評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的建立(一)研究目的結(jié)合胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素和血清胃功能指標(biāo)建立胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及其評(píng)分系統(tǒng),評(píng)估其篩查效能。(二)研究方法以胃鏡及病理診斷作為金標(biāo)準(zhǔn),本研究共納入病例12961例,包括非胃癌組12637例和胃癌組324例。以胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素分析為基礎(chǔ),結(jié)合血清胃功能指標(biāo),進(jìn)行多因素logistic回歸分析,建立胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及其評(píng)分系統(tǒng),采用roc曲線下面積評(píng)估其對(duì)胃癌的篩查效能。最后通過后期入組人群對(duì)評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的準(zhǔn)確性進(jìn)行驗(yàn)證,驗(yàn)證人群共納入病例918例,包括非胃癌組893例和胃癌組25例。(三)結(jié)果1、基于性別、年齡和血清胃功能的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型的建立由性別、年齡、s-g-17(≥3.61pmol/l)和pgr(9.42)四個(gè)因素建立的logistic回歸模型,可以提高血清胃功能對(duì)于胃癌的篩查效能。此時(shí)的roc曲線下面積為0.754(95%ci:0.729-0.780),敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為82.4%(267/324)、56.2%(7106/12637)、4.6%(267/5798)、99.2%(7106/7163)和56.89%(7373/12961)。2、基于多個(gè)胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素和血清胃功能的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及其評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的建立與篩查效能評(píng)價(jià)由性別、年齡、體重指數(shù)、飲食咸淡習(xí)慣、腌制食品攝入、煎炸食品攝入、水果攝入、S-G-17(≥3.61pmol/L)和PGR(9.42)等9個(gè)胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素建立的logistic回歸胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型,血清胃功能篩查效能又可以進(jìn)一步提高。此時(shí)ROC曲線下面積為0.777(95%CI:0.751-0.802),敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為68.8%(223/324)、73.6%(9303/12637)、6.3%(223/3557)、98.9%(9303/9404)和73.50%(9526/12961)。根據(jù)logistic回歸分析中各因素的OR值賦予分值,建立胃癌風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分系統(tǒng)。該評(píng)分系統(tǒng)得分范圍為0~24分,ROC曲線下面積為0.775(95%CI:0.749-0.800)。以11分作為界限值,將研究對(duì)象劃分為胃癌低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)人群和高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)人群。高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)(11-24分)人群中胃癌檢出率為5.5%(234/4255),顯著高于低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)(0-10分)人群中胃癌檢出率1.0%(90/8706)。若總評(píng)分以11分作為界限值,則評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)胃癌診斷的敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為72.2%(234/324)、68.2%(8616/12637)、5.5%(234/4255)、99.0%(8616/8706)和68.28%(7373/12961)。驗(yàn)證人群包括非胃癌組893例和胃癌組25例。按照胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)分系統(tǒng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),計(jì)算驗(yàn)證病例風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分值,最終總分值范圍為0~20分,ROC曲線下面積為0.683(95%CI:0.583-0.783)。以11分作為界限值,驗(yàn)證人群分為胃癌低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)人群(0-10分)和高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)人群(11-20分),后者胃癌檢出率明顯高于前者(5.1%vs1.6%)。若總得分以11分作為界限值,則評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)胃癌診斷的敏感度、特異度、陽性預(yù)測(cè)值、陰性預(yù)測(cè)值和準(zhǔn)確度分別為60.0%(15/25)、68.6%(613/893)、5.1%(15/295)、99.0%(613/623)和68.4%(628/918),與建模人群一致。(四)小結(jié)基于胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素和血清胃功能指標(biāo)建立的胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型及評(píng)分系統(tǒng),可以較好的預(yù)測(cè)院內(nèi)人群胃癌發(fā)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn),篩查出胃癌高危人群,節(jié)約醫(yī)療成本,提高早期胃癌診斷率。
[Abstract]:Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers of the digestive tract.The occurrence of gastric cancer is closely related to dietary habits.Serum gastric function, including serum gastrin-17 and pepsinogen, is often used in noninvasive screening of gastric cancer in Western countries. A national multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate and analyze the risk factors of gastric cancer. The correlation between serum gastric function and gastric cancer was analyzed. The optimal limit value of serum gastric function index for screening gastric cancer was established. The risk prediction model and scoring system of gastric cancer based on the risk factors of gastric cancer and serum gastric function index were established. To find out the screening strategy for gastric cancer. First, to investigate and analyze the risk factors of gastric cancer. (1) To investigate the risk factors of gastric cancer, and to analyze the correlation between diet, lifestyle and metabolic syndrome and gastric cancer, so as to provide a basis for establishing a risk prediction model for gastric cancer. (2) Research methods based on cross-sectional study of hospital population. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate the risk factors of gastric cancer such as diet, living habits and metabolic syndrome. All the subjects followed the procedures of questionnaire survey, blood sampling test and gastroscopy. With gastroscopy and pathological diagnosis as the gold standard for final diagnosis, 12961 cases were included, including 12 cases of non-gastric cancer. 637 cases and 324 cases of gastric cancer group were analyzed by logistic regression and chi-square test. (3) Results 1. There were 12961 cases in this study, including 12637 cases in non-gastric cancer group and 324 cases in gastric cancer group. Other diagnoses (including peptic ulcer, reflux esophagitis, gastric polyp, etc.) included 4286 cases. The gastric cancer group included 127 cases (39.20%) of early gastric cancer and 197 cases (60.80%) of advanced gastric cancer. The average age was 57.29 [9.628]. The female and male cases were 6545 (50.5%) and 6416 (49.5%) respectively. 390 cases (18.4%). 2. Univariate analysis of risk factors for gastric cancer showed that male, old age, smoking, drinking, overnight vegetable intake, salty diet, frequent intake of pickled and smoked foods and lean body mass index were high risk factors for gastric cancer, and frequent intake of fresh vegetables and fruits were protective factors for gastric cancer. Drinking habit is a high risk factor for gastric cancer, and it increases with the increase of alcohol consumption and years of drinking. For women with diabetes and high triglycerides, the detection rate of gastric cancer is higher, but there is no significant difference, so the correlation between metabolic syndrome and gastric cancer is not significant. 3. Multivariate analysis of gastric cancer risk factors. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, sex, age, body mass index, salty eating habits, fried food intake, pickled food intake were risk factors for gastric cancer, fresh fruit intake was protective factors for gastric cancer. The goodness of fit and discrimination of logistic regression model were good. The area under ROC curve was 0.737 (95% ci: 0.708-0.766) (p0.001). (4) Summary Through a large-scale epidemiological survey, this study comprehensively analyzed the relationship between diet, living habits and gastric cancer, and preliminarily explored the relationship between metabolic syndrome and gastric cancer. Fresh fruit intake is a protective factor for gastric cancer. 2. Correlation between serum gastric function and gastric cancer and analysis of screening efficacy (1) To explore the relationship between serum gastric function and gastric cancer, to determine the threshold value of serum gastric function for gastric cancer screening, and to evaluate the effectiveness of serum gastric function in gastric cancer screening. (2) Research methods based on the hospital population. Cross-sectional study. Gastric function in serum (including serum gastrin-17, pepsinogen I and pepsinogen II) was measured by ELISA on an empty stomach. Gastroscopy and biopsy were performed. 12961 cases, including 5401 cases of non-atrophic gastritis and 2950 cases of atrophic gastritis (including low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia) were included by gastroscopy and pathological diagnosis as gold standard. There were 282 cases of gastric cancer, 127 cases of early gastric cancer, 197 cases of advanced gastric cancer and 4286 cases of other diagnoses. Serum pepsinogen_and PGR were lower in atrophic gastritis group than in non-atrophic gastritis group. serum pepsinogen_and PGR were lower in atrophic gastritis group. 95% ci: 0.593-0.649, 0.622 (95% ci: 0.592-0.652) and 0.643 (95% ci: 0.611-0.675) (p value 0.001), respectively. The best diagnostic limits were 3.61 pmol/l, 12.00 ug/l and 9.42. The sensitivity of serum gastrin-17 was the highest (70.1%) and the specificity of PGR was the highest (65.3%). The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 70.1% (227/324), 51.4% (6499/12637), 3.6% (227/6365), 98.5% (6499/6596) and 51.89% (6726/12961), respectively. 3% (7892 / 8026) and 63.96% (8082 / 12961). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of PGR were 58.3% (189 / 324), 65.3% (8257 / 12637), 4.1% (189 / 4569), 98.4% (8257 / 8392) and 64.65% (8446 / 12961) respectively. In the combined diagnosis of serum gastrin-17 and pgr, the diagnostic efficacy was better. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 44.1% (143 / 324), 77.0% (9736 / 12637), 4.7% (143 / 3044), 98.2% (9736 / 9917) and 76.22% (9879 / 12961) respectively in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Heterogeneity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 43.5% (141/324), 73.0% (9230/12637), 4.0% (141/3548), 98.1% (9230/9413) and 72.3% (9371/12961) respectively. Serum gastric function ABC combined with gastrin-17 and pepsinogen could predict the risk of gastric cancer. PGR 9.42 was regarded a s PGR positive (+), PGR > 9.42 a s PGR negative (-), s-g-173.61 pmol / L A s G-17 positive (+), S-G-17 < 3.61 pmol / L A s G-17 negative (-). According to the above criteria, a l l the subjects were divided into three groups according to the results of serum gastric function: a, B and c, group A was serum gastric function double negative, group B was serum gastric function negative. The results showed that the detection rates of gastric cancer in group a, B and C were 1.0% (51/5071), 2.7% (130/4846) and 4.7% (143/3044), respectively. The risk of gastric cancer in each group increased from group A to group c, with the lowest risk of gastric cancer in group A and the highest risk of gastric cancer in group C. The OR values of gastric cancer risk in the two groups were 2.532 (95%:1.823-3.515) and 4.392 (95%:3.171-6.084) (p value 0.001). (4) Summarize the best threshold of serum gastric function screening for gastric cancer in hospital population by cross-sectional study of large sample and consecutive cases. The results showed that serum gastrin-17, pepsinogen II and PGR were reliable serum markers for screening gastric cancer, and serum gastrin-17 combined with PGR was the best for screening gastric cancer; ABC method of serum gastric function could screen high-risk group of gastric cancer, and group C had the greatest risk of gastric cancer. 3. gastric cancer based on risk factors of gastric cancer and serum gastric function had wind Establishment of risk prediction model and scoring system (1) Objective To establish a risk prediction model and scoring system for gastric cancer in combination with risk factors of gastric cancer and serum gastric function indicators, and to evaluate its screening effectiveness. (2) Gastroscopy and pathological diagnosis were used as gold standard in the study. A total of 12961 cases, including 12637 cases of non-gastric cancer, were included. Based on the analysis of risk factors of gastric cancer, combined with serum gastric function index, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to establish a risk prediction model and a scoring system for gastric cancer. The area under the ROC curve was used to evaluate the screening efficacy for gastric cancer. Finally, the accuracy of the scoring system was assessed by the later grouping population. Results 1. Establishment of a logistic regression model based on sex, age, S-G-17 (> 3.61 pmol/l) and PGR (9.42) could improve the serum gastric function. The area under the ROC curve was 0.754 (95% ci: 0.729-0.780), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 82.4% (267/324), 56.2% (7106/12637), 4.6% (267/5798), 99.2% (7106/7163) and 56.89% (7373/12961) respectively, based on multiple risk factors and serum gastric function. Establishment of risk prediction model and scoring system and evaluation of screening efficacy were based on nine risk factors including sex, age, body mass index, salty eating habits, pickled food intake, fried food intake, fruit intake, S-G-17 (>3.61 pmol/L) and PG (9.42) for gastric cancer, serum gastric function. The area under the ROC curve was 0.777 (95% CI: 0.751-0.802), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 68.8% (223/324), 73.6% (9303/12637), 6.3% (223/3557), 98.9% (9303/9404) and 73.50% (9526/12961) respectively. The scoring system ranged from 0 to 24 and the area under the ROC curve was 0.775 (95% CI: 0.749-0.800). The subjects were divided into low-risk group and high-risk group with 11 points as the threshold value. The detection rate of gastric cancer in high-risk group (11-24 points) was 5.5% (234/4255), significantly higher than that in low-risk group (95% CI: 0.749-0.800). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of the scoring system for gastric cancer were 72.2% (234/324), 68.2% (8616/12637), 5.5% (234/4255), 99.0% (8616/8706) and 68.28% (7373/12961) respectively. According to the criteria of gastric cancer risk scoring system, the final total score ranged from 0 to 20, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.683 (95% CI: 0.583-0.783). With 11 as the threshold, the validated population was divided into low-risk group (0-10 points) and high-risk group (11-20 points). The latter was screened for gastric cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of the scoring system were 60.0% (15/25), 68.6% (613/893), 5.1% (15/295), 99.0% (613/623) and 68.4% (628/918), respectively, if the total score was 11 as the threshold value. The risk prediction model and scoring system of gastric cancer based on risk factors and serum gastric function index can better predict the risk of gastric cancer in hospital population, screen out the high risk group of gastric cancer, save medical cost and improve the diagnostic rate of early gastric cancer.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：第二軍醫(yī)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R735.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 倪國(guó)漢;低場(chǎng)強(qiáng)MRI在胃癌診斷中的作用[J];放射學(xué)實(shí)踐;2002年02期

2 戴成雨;胃癌20例誤診分析[J];實(shí)用醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2002年03期

3 李秋波,陶智慧,胡奎,韓智,馬勇;胃癌術(shù)前區(qū)域動(dòng)脈灌注化療加手術(shù)聯(lián)合治療的療效觀察(附24例)[J];航空航天醫(yī)藥;2003年03期

4 倪海濱,毛振彪,黃介飛,肖明兵,季穎林,張彥亮,冒海蕾;血清可溶性細(xì)胞間粘附分子-1與胃癌臨床意義的研究[J];南通醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

5 邢亞莉;姚春霞;唐曉君;劉春梅;;彩超在胃癌診斷中的價(jià)值[J];基層醫(yī)學(xué)論壇;2007年17期

6 ;日本專家用新技術(shù)提高胃癌診斷準(zhǔn)確率[J];生物醫(yī)學(xué)工程與臨床;2009年02期

7 ;新技術(shù)能提高胃癌診斷準(zhǔn)確率[J];中華中醫(yī)藥學(xué)刊;2009年07期

8 高春光;;胃癌患者的臨床治療體會(huì)[J];中國(guó)民族民間醫(yī)藥;2009年14期

9 高瑞鳳;朱曄;劉興姣;;37例進(jìn)展期胃癌的超聲分析[J];中國(guó)實(shí)用醫(yī)藥;2010年25期

10 姜可偉;;規(guī)范全球第二大致死率疾病的診斷——《胃癌診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)》解讀[J];中國(guó)衛(wèi)生標(biāo)準(zhǔn)管理;2010年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 武淑蘭;魏志杰;殷宇明;;胃癌致微血管病性溶血性貧血的診斷[A];第十一屆全國(guó)紅細(xì)胞疾病學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議暨學(xué)習(xí)班論文匯編[C];2007年

2 丁濤;;超聲在診斷胃癌中的應(yīng)用[A];中國(guó)超聲醫(yī)學(xué)工程學(xué)會(huì)第三屆全國(guó)肌肉骨骼超聲醫(yī)學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文匯編[C];2011年

3 陳曉康;呂國(guó)榮;蘇若瑟;;應(yīng)用彩色能量多普勒血流顯像對(duì)胃癌的診斷價(jià)值[A];慶祝中國(guó)超聲醫(yī)學(xué)工程學(xué)會(huì)成立20周年——第八屆全國(guó)超聲醫(yī)學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2004年

4 于吉人;;胃癌的術(shù)前系統(tǒng)評(píng)估[A];2004年浙江省外科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2004年

5 楊軍樂;寧文德;董季平;徐敏;;多層螺旋CT在胃癌診斷中的應(yīng)用研究[A];中華醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)第十三屆全國(guó)放射學(xué)大會(huì)論文匯編（下冊(cè)）[C];2006年

6 張曉鵬;;胃癌磁共振成像研究進(jìn)展[A];第四屆中國(guó)腫瘤學(xué)術(shù)大會(huì)暨第五屆海峽兩岸腫瘤學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議教育集[C];2006年

7 張麗紅;常維平;黃賢會(huì);;螺旋CT在特殊部位胃癌診斷中的應(yīng)用[A];中國(guó)醫(yī)師協(xié)會(huì)放射醫(yī)師分會(huì)首屆會(huì)員大會(huì)暨第四屆醫(yī)學(xué)影像山東論壇、山東省第16次放射學(xué)會(huì)議暨山東省第14屆醫(yī)學(xué)影像學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2007年

8 陳靜;;彩色多普勒超聲檢查在胃癌的應(yīng)用[A];中國(guó)超聲醫(yī)學(xué)工程學(xué)會(huì)第七屆全國(guó)腹部超聲學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議學(xué)術(shù)論文匯編[C];2007年

9 劉池波;梁勇;王海寶;楊林軍;梁津逍;;胃癌患者中血清淀粉樣蛋白A的測(cè)定及臨床意義[A];第二屆中國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)細(xì)胞生物學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)大會(huì)暨細(xì)胞生物學(xué)教學(xué)改革會(huì)議論文集[C];2008年

10 吳厚賓;;腹腔鏡在胃癌診治中的應(yīng)用進(jìn)展(綜述)[A];江西省第二屆胃腸外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議暨江西省第十二次中西醫(yī)結(jié)合普通外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 錢錚;新技術(shù)能提高胃癌診斷準(zhǔn)確率[N];中國(guó)中醫(yī)藥報(bào);2009年

2 記者 陳青;胃癌患者從“存活”邁向“樂活”[N];文匯報(bào);2010年

3 李楠;胃癌診斷敏感性從不足30%提高到57.4%[N];健康報(bào);2008年

4 通訊員 李楠;胃癌“轉(zhuǎn)化醫(yī)學(xué)”研究見成效[N];上海科技報(bào);2008年

5 記者 楚燕　通訊員 那偉 高樹灼;廈門胃癌研究達(dá)國(guó)際領(lǐng)先水平[N];廈門日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

6 胡德榮;新型胃癌分子標(biāo)志物研究獲突破[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2010年

7 本報(bào)記者 周芳;改善飲食習(xí)慣 早發(fā)現(xiàn)早治療[N];吉林日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

8 中南大學(xué)湘雅二醫(yī)院 楊燕貽;胃癌防治有哪些錯(cuò)誤觀念[N];大眾衛(wèi)生報(bào);2005年

9 特約記者 程守勤;胃癌診斷又有新方法[N];家庭醫(yī)生報(bào);2003年

10 重慶萬州 黃瓊;胃癌的手術(shù)治療[N];上海中醫(yī)藥報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 孫大志;基于microRNA 21的調(diào)控作用探討從痰論治胃癌的作用機(jī)制[D];中國(guó)人民解放軍醫(yī)學(xué)院;2012年

2 陳悅之;TNFAIP8在胃癌中的表達(dá)和對(duì)調(diào)節(jié)胃癌細(xì)胞增殖，，影響侵襲及遷移中的作用研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

3 殷繼鵬;腫瘤血管靶向肽GX1用于胃癌的分子影像研究[D];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2015年

4 蔡習(xí)強(qiáng);TFEB介導(dǎo)的自噬在胃癌耐藥中的作用及其機(jī)制研究[D];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2015年

5 趙曉迪;microRNA-7調(diào)控胃癌惡性生物學(xué)行為的功能與分子機(jī)制研究[D];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2015年

6 尚華;MicroRNA-125a在胃癌中表達(dá)水平的研究及其臨床意義[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

7 關(guān)中正;TGF-β在胃癌免疫逃逸中作用及機(jī)制研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

8 黃勇;AEG-1/MT qDH、NF-κB、MMP-9在胃癌中的表達(dá)及相關(guān)性的研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

9 謝黎明;胃癌中miR-124表達(dá)的意義及作用機(jī)制研究[D];南華大學(xué);2015年

10 劉佳寧;SOX9和CEACAM1在胃癌組織中表達(dá)及其對(duì)胃癌細(xì)胞增殖和轉(zhuǎn)移的影響[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 徐海蓉;胃癌危險(xiǎn)因素的流行病學(xué)研究[D];南京醫(yī)科大學(xué);2002年

2 張軍利;p27、PTEN與VEGF蛋白在胃癌組織中的表達(dá)及其意義[D];泰山醫(yī)學(xué)院;2014年

3 馬春婷;胃癌與幽門螺桿菌的相關(guān)性研究[D];石河子大學(xué);2015年

4 王士杰;腹腔鏡手術(shù)治療進(jìn)展期遠(yuǎn)端胃癌的臨床療效及患者術(shù)后隨訪生存質(zhì)量研究[D];中國(guó)人民解放軍醫(yī)學(xué)院;2015年

5 李浩;胃癌血清蛋白標(biāo)記物的篩選與鑒定[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

6 王巍;胃癌患者血液樣品的光譜分析[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

7 李玉博;高場(chǎng)磁共振在胃癌術(shù)前T分期與分級(jí)的價(jià)值[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

8 張?zhí)K鈺;SOX4和P53蛋白在胃癌組織中的表達(dá)及貞芪扶正膠囊對(duì)胃癌術(shù)后輔助治療作用的觀察[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

9 馬來陽;能譜CT成像在胃癌術(shù)前分期及分化程度評(píng)價(jià)中的應(yīng)用研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

10 侯向紅;HORMAD2在胃癌中的表達(dá)及對(duì)胃癌細(xì)胞增殖和凋亡的影響[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

本文編號(hào)：2181430