| 孟 侠,王静依,刘海风,向 睿,何剑英.宫颈特殊染色法、液基薄层细胞学及人乳头瘤病毒检测对宫颈癌前病变的应用价值分析[J].,2019,19(21):4133-4136 |
| 宫颈特殊染色法、液基薄层细胞学及人乳头瘤病毒检测对宫颈癌前病变的应用价值分析 |
| Analysis of Application value of Folate Receptor Mediated Cervical Special Staining, Thin-Cytologic Test and Human Papilloma Virus Test in Cervical Precancerous Lesions |
| 投稿时间：2019-02-26 修订日期：2019-03-23 |
| DOI：10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2019.21.030 |
| 中文关键词: 宫颈特殊染色法 液基薄层细胞学 人乳头瘤病毒检测 宫颈癌前病变 应用价值 |
| 英文关键词: Folate Receptor Mediated Cervical Special Staining Thin-Cytologic Test Human Papilloma Virus Test Cervical Precancerous Lesions Application value |
| 基金项目:四川省卫生和计划生育委员会科研项目（17PJ253） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 633 |
| 全文下载次数: 455 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘要 目的：探讨宫颈特殊染色法（FRD）、液基薄层细胞学（TCT）及人乳头瘤病毒（HPV）检测对宫颈癌前病变筛查的应用价值。方法：选取2015年1月~2018年1月于我院行宫颈癌筛查的1794例妇女作为研究对象，所有研究对象均接受FRD、TCT、HPV检测，以经阴道镜取样活检结果为阳性标准，对比分析三种不同检测方法以及联合检测的诊断效能。结果：病理科活检检出阳性111例，检出率为6.19%；FDR检测检出阳性114例，检出率为6.35%，漏诊率为16.22%；TCT检测检出阳性115例，检出率为6.41%，漏诊率为19.82%；HPV检测检出阳性108例，检出率为6.02%，漏诊率为19.82%；FRD检测与TCT、HPV检测的检出率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。FRD检测敏感度为83.78%，特异度为98.75%，阳性预测值为81.58%，阴性预测值为98.93%；TCT检测敏感度为80.18%，特异度为98.46%，阳性预测值为77.39%，阴性预测值为98.69%；HPV检测敏感度为80.18%，特异度为98.87%，阳性预测值为82.41%，阴性预测值为98.70%；FRD、TCT、HPV联合检测敏感度为93.69%，特异度为99.52%，阳性预测值为92.86%，阴性预测值为99.58%；FRD、TCT、HPV联合检测与FRD、TCT、HPV单独检测的敏感度、阳性预测值比较差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：FRD、TCT、HPV检测对宫颈癌前病变的诊断效能相当，而FRD、TCT、HPV联合检测的诊断效能优于各方法单独检测。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| ABSTRACT Objective: To explore the application value of folate receptor mediated cervical special staining (FRD), Thin-Cytologic test (TCT) and human papilloma virus (HPV) tests in cervical precancerous lesions. Methods: 1794 women screened for cervical precancerous lesions in our Hospital were selected. All women received FRD, TCT and HPV tests.Pathological result was assigned as positive standard, and the diagnostic efficiency of three different detection methods and joint detection were compared and analyzed. Results: 111 cases were positive in pathological biopsy, the detection rate was 6.19%.114 positive cases detected by FDR, the detection rate was 6.35%, the missed diagnosis rate was 16.22%.115 positive cases detected by TCT, the detection rate was 6.41%, the missed diagnosis rate was 19.82%. 108 positive cases detected by HPV, the detection rate was 6.02%, the missed diagnosis rate was 19.82%. There was no significant difference in relevance ratio between FRD detection and TCT, HPV detection (P>0.05). For FRD, sensitivity was 83.78 %, specificity was 98.75%, positive predictive value was 81.58% and negative predictive value was 98.93%. For TCT, sensitivity was 80.18%, specificity was 98.46%, positive predictive value was 77.39% and negative predictive value was 98.69%. For HPV test, sensitivity was 80.18%, specificity was 98.87%, positive predictive value was 82.41% and negative predictive value was 98.70%. For FRD joint detection of FRD, TCT, HPV, the sensitivity was 93.69%,the specificity is 99.52%, positive predictive value was 92.86%, and negative predictive value was 99.58%. There were significant differences in sensitivity, positive predictive value between joint detection of FRD, TCT, HPV and FRD, TCT, HPV separately(P<0.05). Conclusion: The diagnostic efficacy of FRD, TCT and HPV for cervical precancerous lesions is comparable, while the diagnostic efficiency of joint detection of FRD, TCT, HPV is superior to each other. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
