临沂市肿瘤医院健康管理中心，是全市以防癌筛查为特色的专业体检中心。中心聚焦癌症早期筛查，重点开展肿瘤标志物检测、影像学重建、专业彩超、 内镜、病理、基因检测及PET-CT等项目，构建起肿瘤等重大疾病的多层次筛查体系，可精准满足不同群体的健康体检需求。 当前临床已具备完善的肿瘤早期发现技术：胸部薄层CT可发现几毫米的早期肺癌小结节；先进超声设备对甲状腺、乳腺、腹部脏器、心脏、血管等部位 的早期病变筛查至关重要；消化道内镜可清晰观察黏膜病变，同步开展活检与治疗，"检查-治疗"一条龙服务，让消化道肿瘤早诊早治成为现实；PET- CT、分子检测等新技术新设备也持续赋能防癌筛查。 精准定制，打造防癌体检特色品牌 中心打破传统固定套餐模式，个人与团体体检均采用"1+X"项目设计——普适性基础体检与针对性专项体检相结合。通过高质量检前问卷评估，为受检者 量身定制个体化体检方案，在降低体检成本的同时，实现深度、精准的健康检测。 中心内设技术一流的内镜中心，环境舒适、设备精尖、服务优质，常年有中国医学科学院肿瘤医院专家定期坐诊指导，开展胃肠镜检查与早癌手术。中心 年均完成无痛胃肠镜4000余例，深受社会各界好评。 服务一流，全 ...

新华财经北京12月13日电（可达）从相关方获悉，近日北京市卫生健康委员会向"体检10年未查 出癌症"当事人张晓玲出具了关于投诉的答复意见书（下称《意见书》）。 今年7月，律师张晓玲在社交平台实名投诉称，其在爱康国宾、北大医疗康复医院"体检10年未提 示癌症风险、确诊已是癌症晚期"，此事迅速在网络发酵。 《意见书》显示，未发现北大医疗康复医院存在误检、漏检情形；未发现北京爱康国宾西内门诊 部、北京爱康国宾中关村门诊部北京区中央实验室、北大医疗康复医院临床实验室数据及体检结果 造假情形。 《意见书》同时称，北京爱康国宾相关门诊部的肿瘤标志物（癌胚抗原，CEA）检测报告的结果 与原始测定值相同，检测结果可溯源。北大医疗康复医院实验室通过国家卫生健康委临检中心的室 间质评，检测结果可信。 《意见书》显示，CEA属于非器官特异性肿瘤相关抗原，CEA增高常见于结肠癌、直肠癌、胃癌 等多种肿瘤，CEA正常不能排除恶性肿瘤存在的可能，临床上常用于辅助诊断、疗效观察等方 面。 张晓玲此前还曾投诉积水潭医院骨肿瘤科副主任医师杨勇昆在诊疗过程中存在拖延治疗、过度医疗 以及诱导患者前往私立医院进行高价手术等问题。 根据《意见书》，经 ...

从相关方获悉，近日北京市卫生健康委员会向"体检10年未查出癌症"当事人张晓玲出具了 关于投诉的答复意见书（下称《意见书》）。 今年7月，律师张晓玲在社交平台实名投诉称，其在爱康国宾、北大医疗康复医院"体检10 年未提示癌症风险、确诊已是癌症晚期"，此事迅速在网络发酵。 《意见书》同时称，北京爱康国宾相关门诊部的肿瘤标志物（癌胚抗原，CEA）检测报告 的结果与原始测定值相同，检测结果可溯源。北大医疗康复医院实验室通过国家卫生健康委 临检中心的室间质评，检测结果可信。 《意见书》显示，CEA属于非器官特异性肿瘤相关抗原，CEA增高常见于结肠癌、直肠 癌、胃癌等多种肿瘤，CEA正常不能排除恶性肿瘤存在的可能，临床上常用于辅助诊断、 疗效观察等方面。 张晓玲此前还曾投诉积水潭医院骨肿瘤科副主任医师杨勇昆在诊疗过程中存在拖延治疗、过 度医疗以及诱导患者前往私立医院进行高价手术等问题。 根据《意见书》，经查，北京积水潭医院杨勇昆医师存在违反规定转诊患者的情形，北京市 卫健委已责成医院整改，医院已对涉事医师采取通报批评、暂停执业等处理，并对该医师所 在科室和科室主任给予通报批评、取消评优评先等处理。 《意见书》显示，未发现 ...

爱康国宾旗下西三旗门诊部存在医师多执业机构未备案、健康体检报告缺项、医废收集记录不规范等问 题，已被下达监督意见书，责令整改。 12月13日，女律师张晓玲女士质疑体检中心爱康国宾"误检"、"漏检"索赔案曝出最新进展。根据北京市 卫生健康委员会出具的一份答复意见书（市卫健信答【2025】11017），经多轮调查核实，爱康国宾旗 下相关门诊部等机构在核心体检业务中未发现误检漏检、数据造假等重大违规情形，但部分机构存在医 废管理不规范、医务人员备案不全等问题，已依法受到相应处罚。 今年早些时候，张女士称自己十年体检都未检出异常，但突然被确诊患癌症晚期。这场持续半年的纠纷 始于2025年7月，张晓玲女士通过一体化平台、中央巡视组等渠道投诉，认为爱康国宾旗下机构及相关 医院存在漏诊重大疾病、体检数据造假、肿瘤标志物检测不合规等问题，相关行为导致其耽误治疗并造 成终身残疾，诉求包括吊销机构体检资格、医师执业证书及移交公安追究刑事责任等。 北京市卫健委在意见书中的答复显示，经查，北京爱康国宾西内门诊部、西三旗门诊部均将血液样品送 至通过质量认证的北京爱康国宾中关村门诊部北京地区中央实验室进行CEA等肿瘤标志物检测，该实验 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the growing health anxiety among young people regarding health check-ups, with many opting for "modular check-ups" instead of comprehensive ones, reflecting a trend of avoidance and fear of potential health issues [1][2][3]. Group 1: Health Anxiety and Behavior - Many young individuals experience anxiety related to health check-ups, often delaying them until the last moment, believing that not undergoing a check-up equates to not having health issues [2][5]. - The fear of discovering serious health conditions, such as malignant tumors, contributes to a reluctance to participate in comprehensive health screenings [2][11]. - Some individuals engage in last-minute efforts to improve their health metrics before check-ups, which may not accurately reflect their true health status [2][3]. Group 2: Modular vs. Comprehensive Check-ups - The trend of "modular check-ups" is becoming popular among young people, where they selectively choose specific tests rather than undergoing a full health examination [4][5]. - This approach may lead to missed opportunities for early detection of health issues, as individuals might overlook related conditions that require comprehensive assessment [5][8]. - Experts recommend a balanced approach that includes both basic and targeted tests based on individual health history and lifestyle [5][9]. Group 3: Recommendations for Health Check-ups - Health professionals emphasize the importance of maintaining regular health check-ups to identify potential long-term health threats and manage them effectively [3][7]. - It is advised that individuals prepare adequately for health check-ups by maintaining their usual lifestyle prior to testing to ensure accurate results [2][7]. - Customized health check-up plans should be developed based on age, occupation, and personal health history to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential health risks [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the crisis faced by companies like Xibei and Aikang Guobin, highlighting that the root of the crisis is not about right or wrong, but rather a misalignment in understanding between the companies and the public [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Standards vs Public Perception - In the medical examination industry, the standard is to "screen for abnormal indicators," not to "diagnose diseases," leading to a disconnect when consumers expect cancer detection [3]. - In the restaurant industry, Xibei's explanation that "central kitchen pre-processing does not equal pre-made dishes" fails to resonate with consumers who equate anything not freshly cooked as pre-made [4]. - This misalignment indicates that while industries have their own standards and terminologies, consumers lack the time or interest to understand these details [6]. Group 2: Defensive Reactions and Crisis Amplification - The misalignment could have been mitigated through patient explanation and communication, but both Aikang Guobin and Xibei opted for litigation as a response [7]. - For Xibei, the issue of "pre-made dishes" is not just a labeling problem but affects the entire supply chain and cost structure, necessitating a strong defense [8]. - Aikang Guobin views its examination services as "screening," not "diagnosis," and feels compelled to defend against public misconceptions that could undermine its business model [9]. Group 3: Public Sentiment and Perception - Public perception of pre-made dishes is simplistic, often siding with figures like Luo Yonghao, which indicates that Xibei underestimated consumer expectations for transparency in the food industry [10]. - In the Aikang incident, the lawyer's status as a cancer patient garnered public sympathy, making the company's litigation appear as "bullying the weak," overshadowing any professional arguments [11]. - Companies often perceive public questioning as a commercial threat, while the public desires a more open response to their concerns, leading to potential backlash if the boundaries between defense and public education are blurred [12]. Conclusion - The events involving Aikang Guobin and Xibei illustrate that in today's media environment, a company's "standard answer" may be perceived as the "wrong answer" by the public, highlighting a common challenge across industries [13]. - It is more effective for companies to establish effective communication and reduce cognitive gaps before crises arise, rather than responding defensively during a crisis [14]. - Ultimately, gaining public trust is essential for success in any industry [15].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding Aikang Guobin's medical examination services, highlighting issues of trust, communication, and corporate governance in the healthcare sector, particularly in relation to the responsibilities of health service providers [1][5]. Group 1: Trust and Communication - Aikang Guobin's response to the controversy has been criticized for lacking effective communication and empathy towards the public's concerns, focusing instead on legal actions against the accuser [5][6]. - The distinction between "health check" and "diagnosis" has been blurred in Aikang Guobin's marketing, leading to public expectations that routine check-ups can detect all diseases, which is misleading [4][5]. - The company's crisis management approach has been described as "legalistic," which may be perceived as cold and dismissive, rather than addressing the emotional and social aspects of the issue [5][6]. Group 2: Governance and Transparency - Aikang Guobin has faced multiple allegations of misdiagnosis and inadequate service quality, indicating a need for improvement in its operational processes and quality control systems [8][9]. - The company has not publicly disclosed comprehensive ESG reports since its privatization in 2019, leading to a lack of transparency regarding its operational mechanisms and quality management processes [10][11]. - Effective governance requires not only the establishment of quality control systems but also the ability to provide verifiable data and maintain open communication with consumers [11][12]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The incident serves as a warning for the entire healthcare industry, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive governance reforms that include transparent data management and accountability mechanisms [12][13]. - The healthcare sector must shift its focus from defensive legal strategies to user-centric crisis management, viewing crises as opportunities for improvement and better communication with the public [13].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Aikang Guobin's medical examination services highlights significant concerns regarding the professionalism and accountability of health check institutions, particularly in the context of a patient's late-stage cancer diagnosis after years of normal reports [1][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - In mid-July, lawyer Ms. Zhang publicly questioned the reliability of Aikang Guobin's health check services after being diagnosed with late-stage kidney cancer in 2024, despite having no significant abnormalities reported over ten years [1]. - On July 30, Aikang Guobin responded by accusing Ms. Zhang of defamation and announced legal action against her, which has been formally accepted by the court [2][3]. Group 2: Company Response - Aikang Guobin's chairman, Zhang Ligang, stated that the decision to pursue legal action was made to protect the dignity of employees and to restore the company's reputation [3]. - The company emphasized that the medical report from Peking University Hospital indicated early-stage kidney cancer, contradicting Ms. Zhang's claims of late-stage diagnosis [5]. Group 3: Communication and Trust Issues - The incident raises questions about the responsibilities of health management and medical service institutions, particularly regarding the clarity of communication and the adequacy of health check processes [4][10]. - Aikang Guobin's crisis management approach has been criticized for being overly legalistic rather than communicative, potentially leading to public perceptions of indifference and avoidance of responsibility [9][10]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The controversy reflects broader issues within the health check industry, including the blurred lines between health checks and diagnoses, and the unrealistic expectations set by marketing practices [8][9]. - There is a need for the industry to enhance service quality governance, including better data tracking, automatic alert mechanisms for abnormal results, and clearer accountability for medical staff [18][19]. Group 5: Governance and Transparency - Aikang Guobin's lack of transparency following its privatization in 2019 has created significant information barriers, making it difficult for the public to assess the company's operational mechanisms and quality management processes [15][16]. - The company has faced multiple allegations of misdiagnosis and inadequate reporting, indicating a need for improved quality control systems and a more robust response to consumer complaints [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - Aikang Group has filed a lawsuit in response to a cancer screening dispute with Ms. Zhang, with the court officially accepting the case [1] Group 1: Company Actions - Aikang Group's Senior Vice President, Zhou Xiaojiang, announced the lawsuit during a media briefing [1] - Chairman Zhang Ligang stated that the decision was made to uphold the dignity of Aikang's 15,000 employees and to restore the industry's reputation [1]

Core Viewpoint - The statement from Aikang Group addresses a complaint from a client, Ms. Zhang, regarding the accuracy of her health check results over a ten-year period, highlighting the complexities of cancer detection and the limitations of current diagnostic methods [1] Group 1: Company Response - Aikang Group released a statement on July 17, responding to media reports about Ms. Zhang's cancer diagnosis after ten years of normal test results [1] - The company emphasizes that cancer development is a gradual process influenced by various factors, including the timing of tests, detection methods, and the expertise of medical professionals [1] - Aikang Group plans to collaborate with a third-party authority and experts to analyze the situation and will accept responsibility if found at fault [1] Group 2: Industry Context - According to the 2022 edition of the "Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma" published by the People's Medical Publishing House, there are currently no recognized serum tumor markers for the early auxiliary diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma [2] - The cancer embryonic antigen (CEA) test mentioned by Ms. Zhang is not acknowledged as a reliable indicator for assessing the risk of renal cell carcinoma [2]