OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive diagnosis of atrophic gastritis would help to identify individuals at increased risk of gastric carcinoma. In the present study, we evaluated the utility of a serological panel combining pepsinogen I and II, gastrin-17, and anti-Helicobacter pylori antibodies (Gastropanel) as a screening method for atrophic gastritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The serological panel was evaluated in 56 patients divided in two groups: group 1 consisted of 47 patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia and group 2 was composed of nine consecutive patients with gastric carcinoma. In all patients, we performed endoscopy with biopsies of the gastric antrum and body. Levels of pepsinogen I and II, gastrin-17, and anti-H. pylori antibodies were determined through a specific EIA test (Biohit plc, Helsinki, Finland) in fasting serum samples. RESULTS: Atrophic gastritis was significantly more frequent in patients with gastric carcinoma than in those with dyspepsia (56 vs 6%; p = 0.0015). Agreement between the Gastropanel and gastric histology was good (kappa = 0.68). The sensitivity and specificity of the Gastropanel in the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis was 87.5% and 100%, respectively. However, the Gastropanel would not have detected four of the nine cases of gastric carcinoma, since these tumors arose in stomachs with nonatrophic mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Gastropanel is a useful noninvasive method for the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis. However, its utility as a screening method is limited by cases of gastric carcinoma that arise in stomachs without atrophic mucosa.
OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive diagnosis of atrophic gastritis would help to identify individuals at increased risk of gastric carcinoma. In the present study, we evaluated the utility of a serological panel combining pepsinogen I and II, gastrin-17, and anti-Helicobacter pylori antibodies (Gastropanel) as a screening method for atrophic gastritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The serological panel was evaluated in 56 patients divided in two groups: group 1 consisted of 47 patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia and group 2 was composed of nine consecutive patients with gastric carcinoma. In all patients, we performed endoscopy with biopsies of the gastric antrum and body. Levels of pepsinogen I and II, gastrin-17, and anti-H. pylori antibodies were determined through a specific EIA test (Biohit plc, Helsinki, Finland) in fasting serum samples. RESULTS:Atrophic gastritis was significantly more frequent in patients with gastric carcinoma than in those with dyspepsia (56 vs 6%; p = 0.0015). Agreement between the Gastropanel and gastric histology was good (kappa = 0.68). The sensitivity and specificity of the Gastropanel in the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis was 87.5% and 100%, respectively. However, the Gastropanel would not have detected four of the nine cases of gastric carcinoma, since these tumors arose in stomachs with nonatrophic mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Gastropanel is a useful noninvasive method for the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis. However, its utility as a screening method is limited by cases of gastric carcinoma that arise in stomachs without atrophic mucosa.