2025 , Vol. 22 >Issue 02: 106 - 113
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2025.02.003
2021 至2023 年陕西省渭北农村地区基于超声的乳腺癌筛查结果及影响因素分析
Copy editor: 汪荣
收稿日期: 2024-09-14
网络出版日期: 2025-04-01
基金资助
国家自然科学基金面上项目(82471991,82071934)陕西省国际科技合作与交流计划重点项目(2020KWZ-022)
版权
Ultrasound-based breast cancer screening results and influencing factors in rural areas of Weibei,Shaanxi Province from 2021 to 2023
Received date: 2024-09-14
Online published: 2025-04-01
Copyright
目的
对2021 至2023 年陕西省渭北农村地区基于超声的乳腺癌筛查结果进行分析,探讨基于超声的乳腺癌筛查模式的筛查效果及相关影响因素。
方法
选取2021 年1 月至2023 年12月参与陕西省渭北农村地区乳腺癌免费筛查项目的139 622 名女性,年龄35 ~64 岁。数据来源于该地区参与筛查项目的各县上报的乳腺癌筛查结果统计表。研究收集的所有女性均进行了临床检查及乳腺超声检查,超声报告结果为乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS )1、2 类被认为是阴性筛查结果,BI-RADS 0、3、4、5 类被认为是阳性筛查结果。对BI-RADS 0 类和3 类的补充乳腺X 线摄影检查,4 类和5 类进行活检。统计分析参与者的调查问卷结果以及筛查结果数据,计算筛查相关指标,包括召回率、活检率、超声筛查的阳性预测值、乳腺癌检出率、乳腺癌早诊率等;采用多因素二元Logistic 回归分析超声筛查阳性和乳腺癌检出的影响因素。
结果
超声初筛结果显示,召回率为4.18%(5832/139 622),超声筛查的阳性预测值为1.06%(62/5832)。该研究样本的活检率为0.25%(356/139 622),共检出乳腺癌63 例,乳腺癌检出率为0.45‰(45.12/10 万),早诊率为80.95%(51/63)。其中,超声检出62 例,未检出1 例。超声筛查阳性影响因素的分析结果显示,45 ~54岁[OR 值(95%CI):1.16(1.08 ~1.25)]、高中文化程度[OR 值(95%CI):1.46(1.37 ~1.56)]、大专及以上文化程度[OR 值(95%CI):1.30(1.16 ~1.45)] 和未绝经[OR 值(95%CI):1.68(1.56 ~1.81)]是超声筛查阳性的独立危险因素(P 均<0.05)。乳腺癌检出影响因素的分析结果显示,大专及以上文化程度[OR 值(95%CI):4.77(1.34 ~16.95),P<0.05]是乳腺癌检出的独立危险因素。
结论
陕西省渭北农村地区乳腺癌筛查项目乳腺癌的检出和早诊情况符合相关质控要求,表明基于超声的乳腺癌筛查模式在该地区是可行且有效的。
王琪 , 杨春凤 , 宋宏萍 , 许磊 . 2021 至2023 年陕西省渭北农村地区基于超声的乳腺癌筛查结果及影响因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025 , 22(02) : 106 -113 . DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2025.02.003
Objective
To analyze the breast cancer screening results based on ultrasound in the rural areas of Weibei, Shaanxi Province from 2021 to 2023, and to explore the screening effectiveness and related influencing factors of the ultrasound-based breast cancer screening model.
Methods
A total of 139 622 women aged 35-64 years who participated in the free breast cancer screening program in the rural areas of Weibei, Shaanxi Province from January 2021 to December 2023 were selected.The data were derived from the breast cancer screening result reports submitted by the counties participating in the screening program in this region.All the women included in the study underwent clinical examination and breast ultrasound.Ultrasound reports with BI-RADS categories 1 and 2 were considered negative screening results,while those with BI-RADS categories 0, 3, 4, and 5 were considered positive screening results.Women with BI-RADS category 0 or 3 underwent supplemental breast mammography, while those with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 underwent biopsy.The survey questionnaires returned by the participants and the screening results were statistically analyzed to calculate screening-related indicators, including recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value of ultrasound screening, breast cancer detection rate, and early diagnosis rate of breast cancer.Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors influencing positive ultrasound screening results and breast cancer detection.
Results
The initial ultrasound screening results showed a recall rate of 4.18% (5832/139 622) and a positive predictive value of ultrasound screening of 1.06% (62/5832).The biopsy rate in the study sample was 0.25% (356/139 622), with a total of 63 breast cancer cases detected.The breast cancer detection rate was 0.45‰ (45.12 per 100 000), and the early diagnosis rate was 80.95%(51/63).Among these, 62 cases were detected by ultrasound, while 1 case was not detected by ultrasound.The analysis of factors influencing positive ultrasound screening results showed that age 45-54 years [OR (95%CI):1.16 (1.08-1.25)], high school education [OR (95%CI):1.46 (1.37-1.56)], college or higher education [OR(95%CI):1.30 (1.16-1.45)], and premenopausal status [OR (95%CI):1.68 (1.56-1.81)] were independent risk factors for positive ultrasound screening results (all P<0.05).The analysis of the influencing factors for breast cancer detection revealed that having an educational level of college degree or above [OR (95%CI):4.77 (1.34-16.95), P<0.05] was an independent risk factor for breast cancer detection.
Conclusion
The detection and early diagnosis of breast cancer in the breast cancer screening program in the rural areas of Weinan, Shaanxi Province meet the relevant quality control requirements, indicating that the ultrasound-based breast cancer screening model is feasible and effective in this region.
Key words: Breast cancer; Ultrasound; Screening; Influencing factors
1 |
Coles CE, Earl H, Anderson BO, et al.The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission[J].Lancet, 2024, 403(10439):1895-1950.
|
2 |
郑荣寿, 陈茹, 韩冰峰, 等.2022 年中国恶性肿瘤流行情况分析[J].中华肿瘤杂志, 2024, 46(3):221-231.
|
3 |
沈松杰, 孙强, 黄欣, 等.中国女性乳腺癌筛查指南(2022 年版)[J].中国研究型医院, 2022, 9(2):6-13.
|
4 |
王鑫, 李燕婕, 雷林, 等.中国适龄女性乳腺癌筛查服务的可及性:筛查率及其构成分析[J].中华流行病学杂志, 2023, 44(8):1302-1308.
|
5 |
Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, et al.Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer:analysis from ACRIN 6666[J].J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015, 108(4):djv367.
|
6 |
董志伟, 乔友林, 王贵齐, 等.癌症早诊早治工作评价指标的探讨[J].中国肿瘤, 2010, 19 (10):633-638.
|
7 |
马兰, 连臻强, 赵艳霞, 等.基于1 501 753 名中国农村妇女乳腺癌筛查的乳腺超声优化流程分析[J].中华肿瘤杂志, 2021, 43(4):10.
|
8 |
王颀, 吴久玲.农村妇女乳腺癌筛查培训教材 [M].2 版.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2021:13-14.
|
9 |
缪华章, 吴云涛, 朱颖贤.2017-2019 年广东省农村适龄妇女宫颈癌和乳腺癌筛查结果和成本效果分析[J].实用医学杂志, 2023, 39(13):1709-1713.
|
10 |
陈燕彬, 李彦霖, 何丹, 等.四川省2017—2020 年农村妇女乳腺癌检查项目结果分析[J].中国妇幼健康研究, 2023, 34(4):27-32.
|
11 |
周天虹, 顾秀瑛, 姚芳, 等.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.
|
12 |
黄晓曦, 黄欣欣, 陈壮威, 等.福建省2015-2018 年农村妇女乳腺癌筛查的流行病学分析及模式探讨[J].中华医学杂志, 2020,100(30):2367-2371.
|
13 |
韩拓, 龚厚双, 权少敏, 等.秦巴地区农村妇女乳腺癌筛查结果分析[J].肿瘤研究与临床, 2023, 35(1):44-47.
|
14 |
左婷婷, 吴颖, 董首兰, 等.辽宁省沈阳市城市地区2016-2018 年度乳腺癌筛查结果分析[J].实用肿瘤学杂志, 2020, 34(5):387-390.
|
15 |
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al.Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography[J].JAMA, 2014, 311(24):2499-2507.
|
16 |
Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, et al.Artificial intelligencesupported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artiflcial Intelligence trial (MASAI):a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority,single-blinded, screening accuracy study[J].Lancet Oncol, 2023,24(8):936-944.
|
17 |
Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al.The relative contributions of screendetected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease[J].Eur J Cancer, 2003, 39(12):1755-1760.
|
18 |
林婉清, 张月华, 谷雨枫, 等.围绝经期女性乳腺癌筛查状况及筛查率影响因素分析[J].中国妇幼保健, 2023, 38(3):542-545.
|
19 |
Dall GV, Britt KL.Estrogen effects on the mammary gland in early and late life and breast cancer risk[J].Front Oncol, 2017, 7:110.
|
20 |
Goldberg M, D'Aloisio AA, O'Brien KM, et al.Pubertal timing and breast cancer risk in the Sister Study cohort[J].Breast Cancer Res,2020, 22(1):112.
|
21 |
Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al.Breast cancer screening for women at average risk:2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society[J].JAMA, 2015, 314(15):1599-1614.
|
22 |
中国抗癌协会肿瘤标志物专业委员会, 上海市抗癌协会肿瘤标志物专业委员会.基于中国人群的BRCA 胚系突变筛查专家共识(2024 年版)[J].中国癌症杂志, 2024, 34 (2):220-238.
|
23 |
Dong JY, Qin LQ.Education level and breast cancer incidence:a meta-analysis of cohort studies[J].Menopause, 2020, 27(1):113-118.
|
24 |
Wu L, Chen GZ, Zeng ZR, et al.Analysis of breast cancer screening results and influencing factors of breast cancer in Guangdong province from 2017 to 2021[J].J Epidemiol Glob Health, 2024, 14(1):131-141.
|
25 |
王琪, 党晓智, 许磊, 等.超声在乳腺癌筛查中的应用现状与未来[J/OL].中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(4):429-433.
|
26 |
马兰, 任文辉, 赵艳霞, 等.2015 年农村妇女基于超声优化流程的乳腺癌筛查项目卫生经济学初步评价[J].中国肿瘤, 2019, 28(12):891-895.
|
27 |
葛河威, 马飞.关注我国乳腺癌筛查面临的问题[J].英国医学杂志(中文版), 2022, 25(10):582.
|
28 |
国家卫生健康委办公厅.乳腺癌筛查工作方案(国卫办妇幼函〔2021〕635 号) [EB/OL].(2021-12-31)[2025-02-25].http://www.nhc.gov.cn/fys/s3581/202201/cad44d88acca4ae49e12dab9176ae21c.shtml
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |