资源描述：
《年轻妇女宫颈癌(831例)临床病理特点和预后分析.doc》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在工程资料-天天文库。
1、年轻妇女宫颈癌(831例)临床病理特点和预后刘兰芳孙海燕浙江省肿瘤医院妇瘤科浙江杭州310022[摘要]背景与目的：近年來宫颈癌呈年轻化趋势，探讨年轻妇女宫颈癌的临床和病理特点及预后.方法回顾性分析831例35岁以卜宫颈癌的临床资料，随机以1998年1737例35岁以上宫颈癌作对照研究，川SPSS12.0软件统计，临床和病理特点差异川Peasonchi-squoare检验，牛存与复发JIJKaplan-Meier检验，P值<0.05意义。结果35岁以下宫颈癌早期(IB+IIA)病例532例(64%),明
2、显高于对照组(P=0.000),非鳞癌比例高，瘤体大，(P=0.000);早期病例术后病理具冇淋巴结转移较高(P=0.000),易浸及间质深层(P=0.005),两者的脉管累及无差界(P=0.663)；年轻组的临床期别，瘤体大小与术后病理的三大高危因素相关(PvO.05),非鳞癌病例的脉管累及增加(P=0.002)o年轻纽的5年生存率:早期，中晚期分别为75%和39.8%,低于对照组(P=0.000)；2年复发率高，分别为31.95%(早期)和45.48%(中晚期),年长组为15.97%和25.99%,
3、(P=0.000)o结论35岁以下宫颈癌具有临床期别早,非鳞癌比例高，瘤体人的临床特点和相对高危的术后病理因索，临床期别、瘤体人小是影响术后病理的重要原因，非鳞癌增加脉管累及。35岁以卜宫颈癌预后差、易复发和转移。[关键词]宫颈癌；年轻妇女；临床病理；预后；Theclinicapathologiccharactersandprognosisofcervicalcancerinyoungwomen(831cases)LiuLanFang,SunHaiYan.(DepartmentofGynecologic
4、Oncology,ZhejiangCancerHospital,Hangzhou,310022,China)[Keywords]cervicalcancer;youngwoman;clinicapathology;prognosis[Abstract]Backgroundandpurpose:Todeterminethemaincharacteristicsinclinicalandpathologicofcervicalcancerinyoungwomen.andtheinfluenceofageon
5、prognosis.Mehods:Aretrospectivereviewwasperformedfor831patientslessthan35yearsoldcontroledwith1737casesolderthan35.Clinicalandpathologicvariablesincludingclinicalstage,pathologicaltype,tumorsizejymphnodemetastases(LNM),depthofinvasion(DI)andlymphovascula
6、rspaceinvolvement(LVSI)wereanalyzedusingPeasonchi-squowetest.The5-yearsurvivaland2-yearrecurrentwereanalyzedbytheKaplan-Meiermethod.Thereisstatisticalsignificancewiththepvaluesmallthan0.05.Results:Theyoungerpatientswerechartacterizedbyahigherrateofearlys
7、tage(p=0.000),non-squamouscellcarcinoma(p=0.000),bulkylesion(p=0.000),LNM(P=0.000),deepstromainvasion(p=0.005),TherewasnodifferentinLVSIfortwogroups(p=0.663).TheclinicalstageandtumorsizewererelatedwithLNMQIandLVSI(P<0.05),non-squamouscelltypewasrelatedwi
8、ththehigherrateofLVSI(P=0.002).The5-yearsurvivalratewas75%and39.8%inearlyandadvancedstageinyoungpatients,84.38%and54.13%inolderpatientsrespectively(p=0.000).The2-yearrecurrentfortwogroupswas31.95%vs15.97%(p=0.000)inearlyst
