Chan Hyuk Park1, Eun Hye Kim1, Da Hyun Jung1, Hyunsoo Chung1, Jun Chul Park1, Sung Kwan Shin1, Sang Kil Lee1, Yong Chan Lee2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea. leeyc@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ABCD screening method was developed for risk stratification of gastric cancer. It is unclear whether the ABCD method can predict the risk of gastric neoplasms, including gastric adenomas, as observed for gastric cancer. We aimed to devise a modified ABCD method for predicting gastric neoplasms. METHODS: We reviewed 562 patients who had undergone upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy and whose serum IgG anti-Helicobacter pylori antibody, gastrin, and pepsinogen (PG) I and PG II data were available. Patients were classified into the following four groups: H. pylori antibody negative and normal PG level (group A), H. pylori antibody positive and normal PG level (group B), H. pylori antibody positive and low PG level (group C), and H. pylori antibody negative and low PG level (group D). RESULTS: The PG I/PG II ratio was lower in patients with gastric neoplasms than in patients without these lesions (gastric adenoma vs gastric cancer vs no neoplasm, 3.7 ± 2.0 vs 3.8 ± 1.8 vs 4.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001). The optimal cutoff values of the PG I/PG II ratio for predicting gastric neoplasms were 3.1 for H. pylori antibody negative patients and 4.1 for H. pylori antibody positive patients. A higher group grade was associated with a significantly higher proportion of gastric neoplasms [odds ratio (95 % confidence interval), group A, reference; group B, 1.783 (1.007-3.156); group C, 3.807 (2.382-6.085); and group D, 5.862 (2.427-14.155)]. CONCLUSIONS: The modified ABCD method using two different cutoff values according to the H. pylori antibody status was useful for predicting the presence of gastric neoplasms. This method might be a supplementary screening tool for both gastric adenoma and gastric cancer. However, further studies will be required to provide a definitive conclusion.
BACKGROUND: The ABCD screening method was developed for risk stratification of gastric cancer. It is unclear whether the ABCD method can predict the risk of gastric neoplasms, including gastric adenomas, as observed for gastric cancer. We aimed to devise a modified ABCD method for predicting gastric neoplasms. METHODS: We reviewed 562 patients who had undergone upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy and whose serum IgG anti-Helicobacter pylori antibody, gastrin, and pepsinogen (PG) I and PG II data were available. Patients were classified into the following four groups: H. pylori antibody negative and normal PG level (group A), H. pylori antibody positive and normal PG level (group B), H. pylori antibody positive and low PG level (group C), and H. pylori antibody negative and low PG level (group D). RESULTS: The PG I/PG II ratio was lower in patients with gastric neoplasms than in patients without these lesions (gastric adenoma vs gastric cancer vs no neoplasm, 3.7 ± 2.0 vs 3.8 ± 1.8 vs 4.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001). The optimal cutoff values of the PG I/PG II ratio for predicting gastric neoplasms were 3.1 for H. pylori antibody negative patients and 4.1 for H. pylori antibody positive patients. A higher group grade was associated with a significantly higher proportion of gastric neoplasms [odds ratio (95 % confidence interval), group A, reference; group B, 1.783 (1.007-3.156); group C, 3.807 (2.382-6.085); and group D, 5.862 (2.427-14.155)]. CONCLUSIONS: The modified ABCD method using two different cutoff values according to the H. pylori antibody status was useful for predicting the presence of gastric neoplasms. This method might be a supplementary screening tool for both gastric adenoma and gastric cancer. However, further studies will be required to provide a definitive conclusion.
Authors: H Watabe; T Mitsushima; Y Yamaji; M Okamoto; R Wada; T Kokubo; H Doi; H Yoshida; T Kawabe; M Omata Journal: Gut Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Kryssia Rodriguez; Marilisa Franceschi; Antonio Ferronato; Lorenzo Brozzi; Antonio Antico; Maria Piera Panozzo; Arianna Massella; Barbara Pertoldi; Alice Morini; Alberto Barchi; Michele Russo; Pellegrino Crafa; Lorella Franzoni; Lucio Cuoco; Gianluca Baldassarre; Francesco Di Mario Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-08-31
Authors: John D Murphy; Andrew F Olshan; Feng-Chang Lin; Melissa A Troester; Hazel B Nichols; Julia Butt; You-Lin Qiao; Christian C Abnet; Manami Inoue; Shoichiro Tsugane; Meira Epplein Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.090