切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (01) : 45 -57. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2026.01.005

论著

全结肠切除术治疗家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关结直肠癌的预后分析
吕钗, 吴子坤, 朱文溥, 赵卫杰, 陈广龙, 艾慧晗, 杨行, 鲍邦和, 刘发强, 李智()   
  1. 450008 郑州大学附属肿瘤医院(河南省肿瘤医院)普外科
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-28 出版日期:2026-02-25
  • 通信作者: 李智
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(No. 82503868); 河南省科技攻关项目(No. 232102311077); 河南省医学科技攻关项目(No. LHGJ20220198,No. LHGJ20240104,No. LHGJ20240108); 国家临床重点专科建设项目(No. 210020116); 河南省医学教育研究项目(No. Wjlx2020107); 河南省自然科学基金项目(No. 242300420578); 郑州大学医学科学院研究生教育改革研究及课程建设项目(No. 040012023B062)

Analysis of prognosis following total colectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis associated colorectal cancer

Chai Lyu, Zikun Wu, Wenpu Zhu, Weijie Zhao, Guanglong Chen, Huihan Ai, Hang Yang, Banghe Bao, Faqiang Liu, Zhi Li()   

  1. Department of General Surgery, the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & He’nan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou 450008, China
  • Received:2025-10-28 Published:2026-02-25
  • Corresponding author: Zhi Li
引用本文:

吕钗, 吴子坤, 朱文溥, 赵卫杰, 陈广龙, 艾慧晗, 杨行, 鲍邦和, 刘发强, 李智. 全结肠切除术治疗家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关结直肠癌的预后分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2026, 15(01): 45-57.

Chai Lyu, Zikun Wu, Wenpu Zhu, Weijie Zhao, Guanglong Chen, Huihan Ai, Hang Yang, Banghe Bao, Faqiang Liu, Zhi Li. Analysis of prognosis following total colectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis associated colorectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2026, 15(01): 45-57.

目的

比较接受全结肠切除联合回肠直肠吻合术(TC-IRA)的家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关结直肠癌(FAP-CRC)和散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌(SSM-CRC)的预后差异及影响因素。

方法

收集2010年1月至2020年6月在郑州大学附属肿瘤医院(河南省肿瘤医院)接受TC-IRA治疗的614例患者资料。对FAP-CRC与SSM-CRC患者按1∶2进行倾向性评分匹配(PSM)后,采用Kaplan-Meier法与Log-rank检验比较匹配后两组的总体与亚组的生存差异。利用单因素及多因素Cox回归模型探究预后相关的独立危险因素。

结果

经PSM后,73例FAP-CRC患者和146例SSM-CRC患者纳入本研究。结果表明,FAP-CRC组的5年总生存率(OS)比SSM-CRC组高,差异具有统计学意义(87.5% vs. 78.1%,χ2=4.804,P=0.028),两组无病生存率差异无统计学意义。FAP-CRC中,女性、年龄<55岁、癌胚抗原(CEA)≤5 ng/mL、多肿瘤病灶、淋巴结转移、无癌结节、无脉管侵犯及无神经侵犯亚组的患者生存率显著高于SSM-CRC。其中,肿瘤复发(P<0.001)是影响FAP-CRC组和SSM-CRC组术后生存的独立危险因素。

结论

接受TC-IRA手术的FAP-CRC患者,总体生存时间优于SSM-CRC患者,此优势在女性、年龄<55岁、低CEA水平(≤5 ng/mL)、多肿瘤病灶、淋巴结转移、无癌结节、无脉管侵犯及无神经侵犯的亚组中尤为突出。此外,多因素分析显示,肿瘤复发是影响FAP-CRC患者术后生存的独立危险因素。

Objective

To compare the disparities in prognosis and influencing factors between patients with familial adenomatous polyposis associated colorectal cancer (FAP-CRC) and sporadic synchronous multiple primary colorectal cancer (SSM-CRC) undergoing total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (TC-IRA).

Methods

The clinical and prognostic data of patients who underwent TC-IRA treatment at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & He’nan Cancer Hospital from January 2010 to June 2020 were retrospectively collected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed at a 1:2 ratio (FAP-CRC vs. SSM-CRC) to balance patient characteristics. Survival differences between two groups and across subgroups were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. Furthermore, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were employed to identify independent risk factors affecting prognosis.

Results

After propensity score matching, seventy-three patients with FAP-CRC and 146 patients with SSM-CRC were included in this study. The 5-years overall survival (OS) rate was significantly higher in the FAP-CRC group than in the SSM-CRC group (87.5% vs. 78.1%, χ2=4.804, P=0.028). However, no significant difference was observed in the disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups. Subgroup analyses consistently demonstrated higher OS rate for FAP-CRC, including females, age<55 years, carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA)≤5 ng/mL, multiple tumor lesions, lymph node metastasis, absence of cancerous node, absence of lymphovascular invasion and absence of perineural invasion. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses identified tumor recurrence (P<0.001) as independent risk factor for two group patients.

Conclusion

FAP-CRC patients who underwent TC-IRA had a better long-term survival prognosis than SSM-CRC patients, particularly in subgroups such as females, younger individuals (<55 years), those with low CEA levels (≤5 ng/mL), those with multiple tumor lesions, those with lymph node metastasis, and those without cancerous node or lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion. Tumor recurrence were identified as independent risk factor influencing postoperative survival in FAP-CRC patients.

图1 患者纳入研究流程图。注:FAP:家族性腺瘤性息肉病,TC-IRA:全结肠切除联合回肠直肠吻合术
表1 研究对象PSM前后基线特征[例(%)]
变量 匹配前 匹配后
SSM-CRC(n=280) FAP-CRC(n=73) χ2 P SMD SSM-CRC(n=146) FAP-CRC(n=73) χ2 P SMD
性别     7.579 0.006       1.214 0.271  
男性 145(52) 51(70)     0.394 91(62) 51(70)     0.164
女性 135(48) 22(30)     −0.394 55(38) 22(30)     -0.164
年龄     10.620 0.001       1.460 0.227  
<55 140(50) 52(71)     0.469 92(63) 52(71)     0.182
≥55 140(50) 21(29)     −0.469 54(37) 21(29)     -0.182
CEA(ng/mL)     0.005 0.936       0.240 0.695  
≤5 175(63) 46(63)     0.011 87(60) 46(63)     0.071
>5 105(38) 27(37)     −0.011 59(40) 27(37)     -0.071
病灶部位     25.430 <0.001       8.999 0.027  
172(61) 23(31)     −0.644 77(53) 23(31)     -0.457
49(18) 15(21)     0.075 23(16) 15(21)     0.119
59(21) 35(48)     0.538 46(31) 35(48)     0.329
分化等级     10.681 0.003       0.225 0.613  
113(40) 15(21)     −0.490 34(23) 15(21)     -0.068
158(56) 53(73)     0.363 103(71) 53(73)     0.046
9(3) 5(7)     0.144 9(6) 5(7)     0.027
癌结节     12.143 <0.001       1.192 0.275  
178(64) 62(85)     0.597 115(79) 62(85)     0.172
102(36) 11(15)     −0.597 31(21) 11(15)     -0.172
脉管侵犯     4.282 0.038       0.327 0.567  
219(78) 65(89)     0.347 126(86) 65(89)     0.066
61(22) 8(11)     −0.347 20(14) 8(11)     -0.066
神经侵犯     2.026 0.155       0.048 >0.999  
249(89) 69(95)     0.246 139(95) 69(95)     0.060
31(11) 4(5)     −0.246 7(5) 4(5)     -0.060
浸润深度(T)     25.042 <0.001       6.047 0.101  
T1 0(0) 2(3)     0.168 0(0) 2(3)     0.168
T2 45(16) 17(23)     0.171 31(21) 17(23)     0.049
T3 126(45) 45(62)     0.342 84(58) 45(62)     0.085
T4 109(39) 9(12)     −0.809 31(21) 9(12)     -0.271
淋巴结转移     5.403 0.019       0.806 0.369  
149(53) 50(68)     0.329 91(62) 50(68)     0.133
131(47) 23(32)     −0.329 55(38) 23(32)     -0.133
远处转移     1.588 0.352       0.000 >0.999  
274(98) 73(100)     0.166 146(100) 73(100)     0.000
6(2) 0(0)     −0.166 0(0) 0(0)     0.000
TNM临床分期     6.499 0.090       0.822 0.663  
34(12) 12(16)     0.116 21(14) 12(16)     0.055
114(41) 38(52)     0.227 70(48) 38(52)     0.082
127(32) 23(32)     −0.298 55(38) 23(32)     -0.133
5(2) 0(0)     −0.151 0(0) 0(0)     0.000
图2 FAP-CRC与SSM-CRC组OS比较。注:FAP-CRC:家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关的结直肠癌,SSM-CRC:散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌
图3 FAP-CRC与SSM-CRC组DFS比较。注:FAP-CRC:家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关的结直肠癌,SSM-CRC:散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌
表2 FAP-CRC和SSM-CRC组术后具体情况表[例(%)]
图4 FAP-CRC组不同复发方式对OS影响的Kaplan-Meier曲线。4A:硬纤维瘤组与无复发组OS分析图;4B:硬纤维瘤组与其他复发组OS分析图
图5 FAP-CRC与SSM-CRC亚组的5年OS生存分析图。5A:女性亚组的OS分析图;5B:年龄<55岁亚组的OS分析图;5C:无癌结节亚组的OS分析图;5D:无神经侵犯亚组的OS分析图;5E:CEA≤5 ng/mL亚组的OS分析图;5F:多肿瘤病灶亚组的OS分析图;5G:无脉管侵犯亚组的OS分析图;5H:淋巴结转移亚组的OS分析图。注:FAP-CRC:家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关的结直肠癌,SSM-CRC:散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌;CEA:癌胚抗原
表3 FAP-CRC单因素及多因素分析表
变量 单因素分析 多因素分析
例数 事件数 HR 95%CI P HR 95%CI P
性别     2.90 0.75~11.21 0.124      
男性 51 16            
女性 22 3            
年龄(岁)     1.20 0.39~3.74 0.753      
<55 51 13            
≥55 22 6            
CEA(ng/mL)     0.56 0.19~1.61 0.279      
≤5 46 10            
>5 27 9            
病灶部位     1.30 0.40~4.20 0.662      
23 6            
15 2            
35 11            
分化等级     2.86 0.26~11.14 0.586      
15 2            
53 15            
5 2            
癌结节     2.86 0.76~10.78 0.121      
62 14            
11 5            
脉管侵犯     3.33 0.74~14.96 0.116      
65 15            
8 4            
神经侵犯     0.94 0.09~9.67 0.962      
69 18            
4 1            
浸润深度(T)     4.47×106 0.00~Inf 0.993      
T1 2 0            
T2 17 7            
T3 45 10            
T4 9 2            
淋巴结转移     1.39 0.46~4.16 0.561      
50 12            
23 7            
TNM临床分期     0.61 0.14~2.61 0.508      
12 5            
38 7            
23 7            
术后辅助治疗     2.08 0.65~6.59 0.215      
28 5            
45 14            
复发     14.55 4.16~50.85 <0.001 14.55 4.16~50.85 <0.001
53 6            
20 13            
表4 SSM-CRC单因素及多因素分析表
变量 单因素分析 多因素分析
例数 事件数 HR 95%CI P HR 95%CI P
性别     1.59 0.73~3.47 0.242      
男性 91 28            
女性 55 12            
年龄(岁)     0.64 0.30~1.43 0.284      
<55 92 28            
≥55 54 12            
CEA(ng/mL)     2.18 0.99~4.82 0.054      
>5 59 11            
≤5 87 29            
病灶部位     0.96 0.41~2.25 0.924      
77 19            
23 10            
46 11            
分化等级     1.48 0.35~6.35 0.597      
34 11            
103 26            
9 3            
癌结节     0.044 0.16~2.24 0.120      
115 35            
31 5            
脉管侵犯     0.42 0.12~1.54 0.192      
126 37            
20 3            
神经侵犯     0.00 0.00~Inf 0.986      
139 40            
7 0            
浸润深度(T)     0.61 0.20~1.90 0.395      
T2 31 10            
T3 84 23            
T4 31 7            
淋巴结转移     2.03 0.97~4.25 0.061      
91 20            
55 20            
TNM临床分期     1.43 0.48~4.27 0.523      
21 6            
70 14            
55 20            
术后辅助治疗     0.67 0.31~1.45 0.308      
42 14            
104 26            
复发     10.95 4.67~25.68 <0.001 10.95 4.67~25.68 <0.001
107 15            
39 25            
图6 FAP-CRC和SSM-CRC患者术后OS的列线图模型。6A:FAP-CRC模型,6B:SSM-CRC模型。注:FAP-CRC:家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关的结直肠癌,SSM-CRC:散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌
图7 FAP-CRC和SSM-CRC列线图模型的矫正曲线。7A:FAP-CRC矫正曲线,7B:SSM-CRC矫正曲线。注:FAP-CRC:家族性腺瘤性息肉病相关的结直肠癌,SSM-CRC:散发性同时性多原发结直肠癌
[1]
Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024, 74(3): 229-263.
[2]
唐佩, 王翊钊, 马连君. 结直肠息肉内镜下冷切除技术的治疗进展[J]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2025, 12(01): 50-53.
[3]
Mahmoud NN. Colorectal Cancer: preoperative evaluation and staging[J]. Surg Oncol Clin N Am, 2022, 31(2): 127-141.
[4]
Steinberger EA, Westfal LM, Wise EP. Surgical decision-making in familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2024, 37(3): 191-197.
[5]
Banerjee S, Burke AC, Sommovilla J, et al. Risk of proctectomy after ileorectal anastomosis in familial adenomatous polyposis in the modern era[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2024, 67(3): 427-434.
[6]
Guillaume CL, Etienne B, Cyrielle G, et al. Incidence and risk factors of cancer in the anal transitional zone and ileal pouch following surgery for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Cancers, 2022, 14(3): 530
[7]
Friedl W, Caspari R, Sengteller M, et al. Can APC mutation analysis contribute to therapeutic decisions in familial adenomatous polyposis? Experience from 680 FAP families[J]. Gut, 2001, 48(4): 515-521.
[8]
Vitaliy P, Virginia S, Seth F, et al. The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the management of inherited adenomatous polyposis syndromes[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2023, 67(2): 213-227.
[9]
Liuxiang C, Liansong Y, Bing H. Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: molecular genetics and precision medicine[J]. Biomedicines, 2022, 10(12): 3207-3207.
[10]
Karoline H, Carolina M, Hauke L. Current surgical concepts in lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Visc Med, 2023, 39(1): 1-9.
[11]
Hideki U, Hirotoshi K, Tsuyoshi K, et al. Prevalence of laparoscopic surgical treatment and its clinical outcomes in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis in Japan[J]. Int J Clin Oncol, 2016, 21(4): 713-722.
[12]
Jingyun L, Rui W, Xin Z, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling of carcinogenesis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Gut, 2020, 69(7): 1283-1293.
[13]
谢小亮, 杨春, 李海, 等. 多原发结直肠肿瘤的临床病理学分析[J]. 宁夏医学杂志, 2015, 37(11): 970-973.
[14]
刘彬. 基于SEER数据库的同时性多原发结直肠癌的临床病理特征及预后意义的分析[D]. 赣州: 赣南医科大学, 2025.
[15]
Zare B, Monahan JK. Guidelines for familial adenomatous polyposis(FAP): challenges in defining clinical management for a rare disease[J]. Familial Cancer, 2025, 24(2): 35
[16]
Poh-Koon K, Matthew K, Marek S, et al. Familial colorectal cancer type X: polyp burden and cancer risk stratification via a family history score[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2011, 81(7-8): 537-542.
[17]
Sturt NJ, Clark SK. Current ideas in desmoid tumours[J]. Fam Cancer, 2006, 5(3): 275-285; discussion 287-288.
[18]
Liao W, Li Y, Zou Y, et al. Younger patients with colorectal cancer may have better long-term survival after surgery: a retrospective study based on propensity score matching analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2024, 22(1): 59.
[19]
Rizwan MK, Hassaan B, Nabeel SZ, et al. Impact of age on outcome after colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly - a developing country perspective[J]. BMC Surg, 2011, 11(1): 17.
[20]
Thong MSY, Doege D, Koch-Gallenkamp L, et al. Age at diagnosis and sex are associated with long-term deficits in disease-specific health-related quality of life of survivors of colon and rectal cancer: a population-based study[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2019, 62(11): 1294-1304.
[21]
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer and the American cancer society[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2006, 56(3):143-159; quiz 184-185.
[22]
Wu W, Zeng S, Zhang X, et al. The value of tumor deposits in evaluating colorectal cancer survival and metastasis: a population-based retrospective cohort study[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2022, 20(1): 41.
[23]
Akkus E, Karaoğlan BB, Akçadağ B, et al. Combined preoperative and post-adjuvant-chemotherapy carcinoembryonic antigen levels are prognostic for early recurrence and survival in stage Ⅲ colon cancer[J]. Am J Surg, 2025, 243: 116256.
[24]
Bhutiani N, Peacock O, Uppal A, et al. The prognostic impact of tumor deposits in colorectal cancer: more than just N1c[J]. Cancer, 2024, 130(23): 4052-4060.
[25]
杨旭洋, 张扬, 叶丽娜, 等. 直肠癌近端10 cm外肠旁淋巴结转移规律及近端扩大切除的前瞻性队列研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2025, 28(9): 1015-1025.
[26]
Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen as an outcome predictor in colon cancer[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2013, 108(1): 14-18.
[27]
Wichmann MW, Müller C, Hornung HM, et al. Results of long-term follow-up after curative resection of Dukes A colorectal cancer[J]. World J Surg, 2002, 26(6): 732-736.
[28]
Kwaan MR. Postoperative CEA and other non-traditional risk factors for colon cancer recurrence: findings from swedish population-based data[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2020, 27(4): 971-972.
[29]
Agger E, Jörgren F, Jöud A, et al. Negative prognostic impact of tumor deposits in rectal cancer - a national study cohort[J]. Ann Surg, 2023, 278(3): e526-e533.
[30]
Leijssen LGJ, Dinaux AM, Taylor MS, et al. Perineural invasion is a prognostic but not a predictive factor in nonmetastatic colon cancer[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2019, 62(10): 1212-1221.
[31]
郑阔, 高显华, 白辰光, 等. 早发性与晚发性结直肠癌的发病趋势、临床病理特征、治疗及预后的对比研究:一项单中心2000—2021年间34 067例患者的回顾性队列研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2023, 26(1): 93-101.
[32]
Sahakyan MA, Aleksanyan A, Batikyan H, et al. Lymph node status and long-term oncologic outcomes after colon resection in locally advanced colon cancer[J]. In J Surg, 2021, 84(1): 1-7.
[33]
Morpurgo E, Vitale CG, Galandiuk S, et al. Clinical characteristics of familial adenomatous polyposis and management of duodenal adenomas[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2004, 8(5): 559-564.
[34]
张天琪, 徐烨. 家族性腺瘤性息肉病合并林奇样综合征一例[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2024, 27(11): 1168-1171.
[35]
Yasuhiro I, Hideyuki I, Hideki U, et al. Therapeutic approaches for patients with coexisting familial adenomatous polyposis and colorectal cancer[J]. Japan J Clin Oncol, 2016, 46(9): 818-824.
[36]
Nunes L, Li F, Wu M, et al. Prognostic genome and transcriptome signatures in colorectal cancers[J]. Nature, 2024, 633(8028): 137-146.
[37]
Wei B, Li L, Feng Y, et al. Exploring prognostic biomarkers in pathological images of colorectal cancer patients via deep learning[J]. J Pathol Clin Res, 2024, 10(6): e70003.
[38]
Lauricella S, Rausa E, Pellegrini I, et al. Current management of familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2024, 24(6): 363-377.
[39]
Ilaria D, Domenico N, Francesca C, et al. Molecular pathways of carcinogenesis in familial adenomatous polyposis[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(6): 5687.
[40]
Olkinuora AP, Peltomäki PT, Aaltonen LA, et al. From APC to the genetics of hereditary and familial colon cancer syndromes[J]. Hum Mol Genet, 2021, 30(R2): R206-R224.
[1] 严征远, 张恒, 曹能琦, 方兴超, 陈大敏. 单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治切除术的有效性及安全性临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 615-618.
[2] 蔡建珊, 陈进宏. 同时性结直肠癌肝转移手术策略[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 813-821.
[3] 杨刚, 黄徐建, 朱建交, 熊永福, 李敬东. 两种不同类型肝门周围胆管癌临床病理特征及生存预后[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 931-938.
[4] 郑哲宇, 张磊, 张大伟, 潘卫东, 黄晓明. 全腹腔镜下ALPPS治疗结直肠癌肝转移的安全性和疗效[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 748-753.
[5] 中国医师协会结直肠肿瘤专业委员会, 中国抗癌协会NOSES专业委员会, 中国NOSES联盟. 老年结直肠肿瘤经自然腔道取标本手术(NOSES)指南[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2026, 15(01): 17-30.
[6] 潘胜淇, 李兴源, 王佳琦, 关竣庭, 丁可, 常泽文, 汤庆超. 三臂与四臂达芬奇机器人手术系统在乙状结肠与中高位直肠癌根治术中应用的近期疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 509-515.
[7] 张宇坤, 王春林, 周珉玮, 李震洋, 周易明, 顾晓冬, 项建斌. 放疗诱导微卫星稳定型结直肠癌细胞外泌体成分变化及其增强CD8+T细胞功能的体外研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 526-532.
[8] 张金珠, 陈海鹏, 赵志勋, 王锡山. 耗竭性CD8+T细胞表型对结直肠癌免疫检查点阻断剂疗效的影响[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 533-537.
[9] 王思远, 刘馨, 曹永丽, 李明, 张远耀, 魏东. 经自然腔道取标本手术在结直肠肿瘤中无菌与无瘤技术的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 538-545.
[10] 宋柯瑾, 李文星. 肿瘤相关中性粒细胞在结直肠癌中的双重调控作用及临床意义[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 546-551.
[11] 郑见宝, 时飞宇, 郭挺, 徐俊旨, 余钧辉, 赵晨野, 赵伟, 吕毅, 孙学军. 磁牵引置入抵钉座的结直肠肿瘤经自然腔道取标本手术二例报道[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 567-570.
[12] 关旭, 杨明. 中国微创手术的光辉历程与经自然腔道取标本手术的革新之路[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 385-388.
[13] 中国医师协会外科医师分会, 中华医学会外科分会胃肠外科学组, 中华医学会外科分会结直肠外科学组, 中国抗癌协会大肠癌专业委员会, 中国医师协会结直肠肿瘤专业委员会, 中国临床肿瘤学会结直肠癌专家委员会, 中国医师协会外科医师分会结直肠外科医师委员会, 中国医师协会肛肠医师分会肿瘤转移委员会, 中华医学会肿瘤学分会结直肠肿瘤学组, 中国医疗保健国际交流促进会转移肿瘤治疗学分会, 中国医疗保健国际交流促进会结直肠病分会. 结直肠癌肝转移诊断和综合治疗指南(V 2025)[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 398-411.
[14] 侯芳红, 贺修宝. 超声介导的雷公藤甲素外泌体靶向给药系统抗结直肠癌的应用评估[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 13-20.
[15] 韩静, 李西羊, 张桂芝. 不同浓度罗哌卡因超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞在结直肠癌术后镇痛中的效果对比[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 79-85.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?