Literature DB >> 30147361

Risk factors for gastric intraepithelial neoplasia in Chinese adults: a case-control study.

Yanqiu Yu1, Cheng Fang2, Chunyan Peng3,4, Shanshan Shen4, Guifang Xu4, Qi Sun5, Lin Li5, Chuan Su6, Xiaoping Zou3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastric carcinoma (GC) is the third most frequent malignancy and the second most common cancer-related cause of death cause worldwide. Gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN) is a well-documented precancerous lesion of GC. In this case-control study, we comprehensively explored the clinical and pathological characteristics of GIN, with the aim to identify its potential risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 630 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection or mucosal resection for GIN were initially included. The detailed characteristics of all eligible patients and well-matched healthy controls were recorded and analyzed. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed and presented with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidential interval (CI), with additional subgroup analyses based on lesion location.
RESULTS: A total of 485 GIN-eligible patients were selected, among which 156 had proximal GIN. After follow-up, 434 patients with GIN and 310 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were included in the comparative analyses. Family cancer history (FCH); alcohol abuse; tobacco abuse; intake of high sodium, preserved food, spicy food, and less fruit; Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection; and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were more frequent in GIN patients. Thus, FCH (OR =3.485, 95% CI: 2.031-5.981), high sodium intake (OR =2.830, 95% CI: 1.645-4.868), less fruit intake (OR =4.082, 95% CI: 2.515-6.625), Hp infection (OR =2.307, 95% CI: 1.417-3.755), and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia (OR =15.070, 95% CI: 8.999-25.237) were independent risk factors for GIN. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that the specific independent risk factor for proximal GIN was age (OR =2.001, 95% CI: 1.003-3.994), whereas that for distal GIN was intake of high sodium (OR =3.467, 95% CI: 1.896-6.338).
CONCLUSION: This study reported a comprehensive overview of the clinical and pathological characteristics of GIN. FCH, high sodium intake, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis were identified as the independent risk factors for GIN.

Entities:  

Keywords:  case–control study; gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; risk factor; subgroup analysis

Year:  2018        PMID: 30147361      PMCID: PMC6095124          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S166472

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Gastric carcinoma (GC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide with approximately 1.3 million newly diagnosed cases.1 In People’s Republic of China, GC ranks as the second most frequently occurring cancer and cause of cancer deaths; approximately 679,100 new cases and 498,000 GC-related deaths were projected to occur in 2015.2 The prognosis of GC differs significantly in accordance with various stages; the 5-year overall survival rate of early GC is over 90%, while that of advanced GC is about 15%.3 Early diagnosis and treatment of GC could contribute to the prolonged survival of GC patients.4 Gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN) is well accepted as a precancerous lesion of GC, which can be divided into 2 categories according to lesion location: proximal and distal intraepithelial neoplasia (PGIN and DGIN, respectively).5 The annual incidence of GC is 6% for high-grade GIN patients within 5 years after diagnosis.6 To date, numerous efforts have been devoted to identify the clinical and epidemiological features of GC;7,8 however, GIN remains poorly understood. Furthermore, previous studies demonstrated that proximal and distal GC (PGC and DGC) are 2 distinct entities with different epidemiologic, clinicopathologic, and molecular biological features.9–11 Hence, it is of vital importance to explore the potential variety between risk factors for PGIN and DGIN. In the current study, we retrospectively enrolled 485 GIN patients to provide a comprehensive overview of the clinical and pathological features of GIN. Furthermore, 310 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers were recruited for comparison to identify the potential risk factors for GIN.

Patients and methods

Patient selection

From January 2007 to December 2014, 630 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for GIN at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were initially included in the current study. The inclusion criteria were set as follows: 1) age ≥18 years and 2) pathologically diagnosed with GIN after ESD/EMR by 2 independent experienced pathologists. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) pathologically diagnosed with GC after operation, 2) multifocal lesion which was defined as the distance between 2 lesions over 20 mm, 3) a history of GC, and 4) tumor located at distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. The detailed selection criteria are demonstrated in Figure 1. A total of 485 patients with GIN were finally enrolled in this study. Furthermore, 310 gender- and age-matched outpatients who underwent endoscopy and biopsy confirmed to be negative for GC or GIN were recruited as the control group. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.
Figure 1

Study flow chart.

Notes: A total of 485 eligible GIN patients were included in this study, among which 434 patients with detailed follow-up information were compared with 310 well-matched controls.

Abbreviations: EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; GC, gastric carcinoma; GIN, gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; DGIN, distal GIN; PGIN, proximal GIN.

Study procedure

All endoscopy procedures including ESD/EMR were performed by well-trained physicians. The endoscopic morphology of superficial lesions was recoded according to the Paris classification system.12 The representative histologic images of low- and high-grade GIN are shown in Figure 2A and B, respectively. Furthermore, the GIN lesions were categorized into 2 groups: PGIN, which was defined as a lesion located within 30 mm from the gastroesophageal junction and DGIN, which was described as a lesion located in the remaining regions. The electronic medical records were thoroughly reviewed, and clinical follow-up was performed by office visit or telephone contact. Information, including history of cancer, personal history, dietary habit, and present relevant diseases, were collected in a uniform form as was previously reported.13 Table S1 presents the detailed items and corresponding definitions.
Figure 2

Overview of GIN distribution.

Notes: Representative histological images of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (A); high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (B); location distribution of GIN (C); and proportion of 2 GIN types (D). (A, B) Magnification was set at ×200.

Abbreviations: GIN, gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; DGIN, distal GIN; PGIN, proximal GIN.

Statistical analysis

The continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD after the confirmation of normal distribution and were compared using Student’s t-test or 1-way analysis of variance test. The categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages and compared with χ2 statistics or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate. To identify the potential risk factors, the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied and are presented as odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidential interval (95% CI). The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 22.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA), and statistical significance was taken as a 2-sided P-value <0.05.

Results

Baseline clinical and pathological characteristics

A total of 485 GIN patients were enrolled in this study. Among these participants, 156 were diagnosed with PGIN (Figure 2C). The proportion of incident PGIN cases increased gradually from 13.6% in 2007–2008 to 35.3% in 2012–2014 (Figure 2D). The mean age was 62.3 years and differed between 2 groups (PGIN vs DGIN: 63.8±8.5 vs 61.6±9.4 years, P=0.018; Table 1). As summarized in Table 1, significant differences were observed in the distributions of age, gender, endoscopic morphology, histologic grade, occurrence of gastritis cystica profunda, and pancreatic metaplasia between PGIN and DGIN patients. During the follow-up period, 51 (10.5%) were patients lost to followup, and the remaining 434 GIN patients with 310 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were included in the comparative analyses (Figure 1).
Table 1

Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients with GIN

VariablesGIN (n=485)PGIN (n=156)DGIN (n=329)P-value
Age (years)
 Mean ± SD62.3±9.263.8±8.561.6±9.40.018
 ≤403 (0.6%)1 (0.6%)2 (0.6%)0.048
 41–5052 (10.7%)10 (6.4%)42 (12.8%)
 51–60147 (30.3%)40 (25.7%)107(32.5%)
 61–70188 (38.8%)73 (46.8%)115 (35%)
 ≥7195 (19.6%)32 (20.5%)63 (19.1%)
Gender
 Male367 (75.7%)131 (84.0%)236 (71.7%)0.003
 Female118 (24.3%)25 (16.0%)93 (28.3%)
Endoscopic morphology
 I183 (37.7%)48 (30.8%)135 (41.0%)0.001
 IIa81 (6.7%)16 (10.3%)65 (19.7%)
 IIb72 (14.8%)29 (18.5%)43 (13.1%)
 IIc122 (25.2%)51 (32.7%)71 (21.6%)
 III27 (5.6%)12 (7.7%)15 (4.6%)
Lesion size (cm)
 Mean ± SD2.6±1.12.5±1.32.7±1.20.369
Histological grade
 Low grade237 (48.9%)57 (36.5%)180 (54.7%)<0.001
 High grade248 (51.1%)99 (63.5%)149 (45.3%)
Surrounding mucosa manifestation
 Chronic gastritis478 (98.6%)154 (98.7%)324 (98.5%)0.838
 Intestinal metaplasia434 (89.5%)134 (85.9%)300 (91.2%)0.076
 Mucosal atrophy431 (88.9%)133 (85.3%)298 (90.6%)0.082
 Hp infection262 (54.0%)75 (48.1%)187 (56.8%)0.071
 Pancreatic metaplasia3 (0.61%)3 (1.3%)0 (0%)0.033
 Gastritis cystica profunda33 (6.8%)24 (15.4%)9 (2.7%)<0.001

Abbreviations: GIN, gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; PGIN, proximal GIN; DGIN, distal GIN; Hp, Helicobacter pylori.

Comparison of risk factors for GIN and subgroup analyses stratified by PGIN and DGIN

Compared to the control group, family cancer history (FCH); alcohol abuse; tobacco abuse; intake of high sodium, preserved food, spicy food, less fruit; Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were more frequent in GIN patients (Table 2). Further stratification analyses revealed the similar results in both groups, except that the number of patients with PGIN aged over 60 years was higher than that of patients with DGIN (P=0.001, Table 2).
Table 2

Comparison of subject characteristics between groups

VariablesControl (n=310)
GIN (n=434)
PGIN (n=135)
DGIN (n=299)
DataDataP-valueDataP-valueDataP-value
Age (years)
 Mean ± SD61.25±10.8062.02±9.030.30863.07±8.450.16761.77±9.280.526
 <60140 (45.2%)151 (34.8%)0.09837 (27.4%)0.001114 (38.1%)0.070
 ≥60170 (54.8%)386 (65.2%)98 (72.6%)185 (61.9%)
Gender
 Male215 (69.4%)325 (74.9%)0.096103 (76.3%)0.136222 (74.2%)0.180
 Female95 (30.6%)109 (25.1%)32 (23.7%)77 (25.8%)
Hp infection
 Positive93 (30.0%)233 (53.7%)<0.00161 (45.2%)<0.001172 (57.5%)0.001
 Negative216 (69.7%)201 (46.3%)74 (54.8%)127 (42.5%)
BMI
 Average ± SD23.51±2.8723.69±3.370.45924.02±3.170.12923.57±3.450.821
 BMI <18.514 (4.5%)18 (2.8%)0.1716 (4.5%)0.56112 (4.0%)0.165
 18.5≤ BMI ≤24.0187 (60.3%)230 (47.2%)72 (53.3%)158 (52.8%)
 24.0< BMI ≤28.097 (31.3%)160 (36.2%)51 (37.8%)109 (36.5%)
 BMI >28.012 (3.9%)26 (6.7%)6 (4.4%)20 (6.7%)
History of cancer
 Personal6 (1.9%)8 (1.8%)0.9271 (0.7%)0.3527 (2.3%)0.729
 Family55 (17.7%)187 (43.1%)<0.00152 (38.5%)<0.001135 (45.2%)<0.001
Personal history
 ETE51 (16.5%)60 (13.8%)0.32115 (11.1%)0.14545 (15.1%)0.635
 Use of NSAIDs18 (5.8%)28 (6.5%)0.71911 (8.1%)0.35817 (5.7%)0.949
 Tobacco abuse115 (37.1%)247 (56.9%)<0.00176 (56.3%)<0.001171 (57.2%)<0.001
 Alcohol abuse114 (36.8%)234 (53.9%)<0.00172 (53.3%)<0.001162 (54.2%)<0.001
Dietary habit
 High sodium132 (42.6%)338 (77.9%)<0.00197 (71.9%)<0.001241 (80.6%)<0.001
 Preserved food83 (26.9%)234 (53.9%)<0.00167 (49.6%)<0.001167 (55.9%)<0.001
 Spicy food53 (17.1%)173 (39.9%)<0.00149 (36.3%)0.010124 (41.5%)<0.001
 Smoked food8 (2.6%)13 (3.0%)0.6903 (2.2%)0.47210 (3.3%)0.888
 Fried food14 (4.5%)38 (8.8%)0.25910 (7.4%)0.67128 (9.4%)0.195
 Hot food74 (23.9%)172 (39.6%)0.10657 (42.2%)0.085115 (38.5%)0.215
 Less fruit99 (31.9%)297 (68.4%)<0.00196 (71.1%)<0.001201 (67.2%)<0.001
 Less vegetable45 (14.5%)55 (12.7%)0.46714 (10.4%)0.23641 (13.7%)0.776
Present relevant illness
 Anxiety/depression status68 (21.9%)108 (24.9%)0.13336 (26.7%)0.45572 (24.1%)0.109
 Hypertension62 (20.0%)108 (24.9%)0.11836 (26.7%)0.11972 (24.0%)0.224
 Diabetes mellitus22 (7.1%)43 (9.9%)0.18111 (8.1%)0.69732 (10.7%)0.118
 GERD99 (31.9%)120 (27.7%)0.20641 (30.4%)0.21579 (26.4%)0.135
 Hiatal hernia3 (1.0%)3 (0.7%)0.6782 (1.5%)0.6361 (0.3%)0.333
 Columnar-lined esophagus2 (0.6%)9 (2.1%)0.1113 (2.2%)0.1446 (2.0%)0.140
 Gastric intestinal metaplasia and atrophy112 (36.1%)375 (86.4%)<0.001122 (90.4%)<0.001253 (84.6%)<0.001

Abbreviations: GIN, gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; PGIN, proximal GIN; DGIN, distal GIN; Hp, Helicobacter pylori; BMI, body mass index; ETE, environmental toxin exposure; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Identification of risk factors for GIN

To identify potential risk factors for GIN, univariate logistic regression analyses were conducted, and it was found that FCH; alcohol abuse; tobacco abuse; intake of high sodium, preserved food, spicy food, and less fruit; Hp infection; and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were found as potential risk factors for GIN (Table 3). The subgroup analyses showed that age (≥60 years) was a high risk for PGIN (OR =2.265, 95% CI: 1.455–3.524, P=0.001) than for DGIN (OR =1.348, 95% CI: 0.975–1.864, P=0.070).
Table 3

Univariate analysis of risk factors for early PGIN and DGIN

VariablesPGIN (n=135)
DGIN (n=299)
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)
 <601.000 (Reference)1.000 (Reference)
 ≥602.265 (1.455–3.524)0.0011.348 (0.975–1.864)0.070
Gender
 Female1.000 (Reference)1.000 (Reference)
 Male1.422 (0.894–2.263)0.1371.274 (0.894–1.816)0.180
 Hp infection3.665 (2.347–5.722)<0.0012.513 (1.778–3.552)<0.001
BMI
 18.5≤ BMI ≤24.01.000 (Reference)1.000 (Reference)
 BMI <18.51.207 (0.360–4.051)0.7601.172 (0.441–3.116)0.750
 24.0< BMI ≤28.01.428 (0.920–2.217)0.1121.441 (1.012–2.052)0.143
 BMI >28.01.358 (0.490–3.764)0.5561.528 (1.216–5.257)0.437
History of cancer
 Personal0.378 (0.045–3.171)0.3521.215 (0.403–3.657)0.730
 Family2.905 (1.847–4.568)<0.0013.817 (2.637–5.524)<0.001
Personal history
 ETE0.635 (0.343–1.174)0.1480.900 (0.581–1.392)0.635
 Use of NSAIDs1.439 (0.660–3.136)0.3600.978 (0.494–1.936)0.949
 Tobacco abuse2.184 (1.448–3.294)<0.0012.265(1.637–3.135)<0.001
 Alcohol abuse1.965 (1.305–2.959)0.0012.033 (1.470–2.811)<0.001
Dietary habit
 High sodium3.442 (2.223–5.331)<0.0015.603 (3.892–8.067)<0.001
 Preserved food2.683 (1.761–4.087)<0.0013.450 (2.458–4.843)<0.001
 Spicy food1.838 (1.152–2.932)0.0112.286 (1.556–3.358)<0.001
 Smoked food0.614 (0.160–2.354)0.4770.934 (0.363–2.407)0.888
 Fried food1.200 (0.517–2.783)0.6711.550 (0.796–3.018)0.198
 Hot food1.471 (0.947–2.287)0.0861.258 (0.875–1.810)0.215
 Less fruit5.246 (3.371–8.164)<0.0014.000 (2.860–5.593)<0.001
 Less vegetable0.681 (0.360–1.289)0.2380.936 (0.593–1.477)0.776
Present relevant illness
 Anxiety/depression status0.834 (0.518–1.343)0.4560.728 (0.493–1.074)0.109
 Hypertension1.431 (0.82–2.54)0.1191.242 (0.78–1.51)0.224
 Diabetes mellitus1.161 (0.546–2.468)0.6971.569 (0.889–2.768)0.120
 GERD0.771 (0.500–1.190)0.2150.765 (0.539–1.087)0.135
 Hiatal hernia1.539 (0.254–9.316)0.6390.343 (0.036–3.320)0.356
 Columnar-lined esophagus3.527 (0.582–21.353)0.1703.154 (0.631–15.750)0.162
 Gastric intestinal metaplasia and atrophy16.591 (8.952–30.748)<0.0019.723 (6.581–14.366)<0.001

Abbreviations: PGIN, proximal gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; DGIN, distal gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidential interval; Hp, Helicobacter pylori; BMI, body mass index; ETE, environmental toxin exposure; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Subsequently, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed (Table 4). FCH, high sodium intake, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were identified as independent risk factors for GIN. Further stratification analyses confirmed that FCH, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were independent risk factors for both PGIN and DGIN. One specific independent risk factor for PGIN was age, while that for DGIN was intake of high sodium.
Table 4

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for PGIN and DGIN

VariablesGIN (n=434)
PGIN (n=135)
DGIN (n=299)
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)
 <601.000 (Reference)1.000 (Reference)1.000 (Reference)
 ≥600.845 (0.623–1.254)0.0872.001 (1.003–3.994)0.0491.511 (0.895–2.549)0.122
Hp infection2.307 (1.417–3.755)0.0012.057 (1.601–5.838)0.0032.553 (1.393–4.681)0.002
Family history of cancer3.485 (2.031–5.981)<0.0013.089 (1.515–6.300)0.0023.802 (2.118–6.825)<0.001
Personal history
 Tobacco abuse1.561 (0.883–2.759)0.1261.840 (0.850–3.987)0.1221.389 (0.754–2.558)0.292
 Alcohol abuse0.896 (0.500–1.603)0.7110.872 (0.396–1.923)0.7350.937 (0.502–1.748)0.838
Dietary habit
 High sodium2.830 (1.645–4.868)<0.0011.840 (0.850–3.987)0.2573.467 (1.896–6.338)<0.001
 Preserved food1.520 (0.894–2.584)0.1201.758 (0.860–3.595)0.1231.393 (0.783–2.479)0.259
 Spicy food1.309 (0.752–2.280)0.3411.325 (0.612–2.872)0.4751.487 (0.812–2.722)0.199
 Less fruit4.082 (2.515–6.625)<0.0014.752 (2.469–9.145)<0.0013.678 (2.173–6.225)<0.001
Present relevant illness
 Gastric intestinal metaplasia and atrophy15.070 (8.999–25.237)<0.00116.423 (7.513–35.898)<0.00114.337 (8.102–25.371)<0.001

Abbreviations: GIN, gastric intraepithelial neoplasia; PGIN, proximal GIN; DGIN, distal GIN; OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidential interval; Hp, Helicobacter pylori.

Discussion

GC is a major public health problem globally,14,15 and GIN has been well accepted as the premalignant lesion of GC.3,16 In the present study, we comprehensively explored the clinical and pathological characteristics of GIN in the Chinese population. The findings were as follows: 1) PGIN had half the number incidences of DGIN, but exhibited increasing trends during the study period, 2) age, FCH, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were independent risk factors for GIN, and 3) age was a specific independent risk factor for PGIN, whereas that for DGIN was high sodium intake. Emerging evidence indicated that GC could be divided into 2 categories, namely, PGC and DGC, due to different epidemiologic, clinicopathologic, and molecular biological characteristics.9,10,17,18 However, recent studies challenged this classification because they found that PGC was more like DGC rather than esophageal adenocarcinoma.19–21 Considering the existing controversy about PGC and DGC, the current study was conducted to comprehensively explore the characteristics of GC’s precancerous lesion, ie, GIN, and compare the difference between PGIN and DGIN. Among all 485 patients with GIN, 329 were diagnosed with DGIN and accounted for 67.8% of the population; a similar proportion of DGC was found in all GC cases.13,22 Furthermore, our results showed an increasing trend for PGIN as its proportion increased gradually during the study period 2007–2014, which was similar to the trends for PGC.23–25 To identify risk factors for GIN, a total of 434 GIN patients with 310 well-matched controls were recruited. Based on the results of logistic regression analyses, FCH, high sodium, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were identified as independent risk factors for GIN. All abovementioned parameters except Hp infection were also well documented as the risk factors for GC, which can support the conclusion that GIN is one of the important premalignant lesions of GC to some extent.26,27 In this study, Hp infection has been identified as an independent risk factor for GIN with an OR of 2.307 (95% CI: 1.417–3.755). Although some controversies still exist, a growing body of evidence indicated that Hp infection is etiologically related to gastric cancer, and the eradication of Hp infection could contribute to a reduced incidence of GC.27,28 However, the detailed biological mechanisms underlying Hp infection-induced GIN remain far from understood. In addition, we also examined the association between anxiety/depression status and GIN risk; however, the results were negative. In a Chinese report including 118 patients with gastroesophageal precancerous lesions and 210 healthy controls, it was demonstrated that the anxiety and depression scale scores were higher in patients.29 Considering the potential variations between PGIN and DGIN, subgroup analyses were conducted. FCH, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia were proven as the independent risk factors for both PGIN and DGIN. In particular, age was a specific independent risk factor for PGIN while that for DGIN was intake of high sodium. The results suggested that PGIN and DGIN shared similar etiology, similar to PGC and DGC. Further studies are warranted to validate the findings. This study comprehensively explored the potential risk factors for Chinese GIN patients in the real-world setting and found some positive results. However, some limitations should be acknowledged in interpreting the results. First, the retrospective nature might induce selection bias, even though the study was stringently designed and conducted. Second, the limited sample size in a single institute might reduce the statistical power of the results. Third, the lost follow-up rate was relatively high (10.5%), though various efforts have been devoted and the statistical analysis showed balanced in both PGIN and DGIN groups.

Conclusion

In summary, this study provided a comprehensive overview of the clinical and pathological characteristics of GIN. FCH, high sodium intake, less fruit intake, Hp infection, and atrophic gastritis were identified as the independent risk factors for GIN. Further well-designed, prospective, and unbiased studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to verify our findings. Detailed items and the corresponding definitions Note: Anxiety status was determined with Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, while depression status was examined with Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.
Table S1

Detailed items and the corresponding definitions

1. Baseline information
Name: ____ Age (years):____ Gender:____
Operation date:____ Operation name:____ Physician name:____
Pathology report 1: by Pathologist:____ Date:____
Histological type:____ Size:____
Macroscopic appearance:____ Location:____
Pathology report 2: By Pathologist:_____ Date:____
Histological type:____ Size:____
Macroscopic appearance:____ Location:____
Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection:________
Note: Hp infection was determined by the rapid urease test and Giemsa stain.
Height (cm):____ Weight (kg):____ Body mass index (BMI):____
Note: Thin: <18.5; normal: 18.5–24.0; overweight: 24.1–28.0; obesity: >28.0.
2. History of cancer
➢ Personal cancer history (PCH):______
➢ Family cancer history (FCH):_______
Note: FCH includes most common malignancies such as cancers in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, prostate, and breast, etc, except skin basal cell carcinoma in patients’ first- and second-degree relatives.
3. Personal history
➢ Occupation:____ History of environmental toxin exposure (ETE):_____
Note: ETE was defined as a history of direct contact with toxic industrial raw materials or effluent, or living in a radius of 5 km of a heavily polluted industrious facility, or having a history of occupational toxic chemical exposure over 5 years.
➢ Alcohol abuse:______
Note: It was defined as intake of 500 mL beer, 250 mL yellow rice wine, or 50 mL wine, over twice per week.
➢ Tobacco abuse:_____
Note: It was defined as over 10 pack/yr for tobacco abuse.
➢ Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs):____________
Note: It was defined as long-term use due to cardiovascular or rheumatoid diseases for >6 months.
4. Dietary habit
➢ Preferences on preserved meat (≥3 times/wk):____________________
➢ Preferences on spicy food (≥3 times/wk):_______________
➢ Preferences on smoked food (≥3 times/wk):____________
➢ Preferences on fried food (≥3 times/wk):______________
➢ Preferences on hot food (≥3 times/wk):____________
➢ High sodium intake (defined as over 6 g daily):______________
➢ Intake of fresh fruit and vegetables (occasional, defined as <2/wk):____
5. Present relevant illness
➢ Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD):________
Note: GERD was defined as symptoms of acid reflux such as heartburn and laryngopharyngeal reflux.
➢ Hypertension (>5 years):_________
➢ Diabetes mellitus (>5 years):__________
➢ Hiatal hernia (sliding and/or mixed types):___________
➢ Anxiety/depression status:____________

Note: Anxiety status was determined with Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, while depression status was examined with Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.

  29 in total

1.  Should adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction be classified as esophageal cancer? A comparative analysis according to the seventh AJCC TNM classification.

Authors:  Yun-Suhk Suh; Dong-Seok Han; Seong-Ho Kong; Hyuk-Joon Lee; Young Tae Kim; Woo-Ho Kim; Kuhn Uk Lee; Han-Kwang Yang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Global patterns and trends in stomach cancer incidence: Age, period and birth cohort analysis.

Authors:  Ganfeng Luo; Yanting Zhang; Pi Guo; Li Wang; Yuanwei Huang; Ke Li
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 3.  Concepts in the prevention of adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and proximal stomach.

Authors:  Rhonda F Souza; Stuart J Spechler
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 4.  Gastric cancer - clinical and epidemiological aspects.

Authors:  Marino Venerito; Alexander Link; Theodoros Rokkas; Peter Malfertheiner
Journal:  Helicobacter       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.753

5.  Patients with distal intestinal gastric cancer have superior outcome with addition of taxanes to combination chemotherapy, while proximal intestinal and diffuse gastric cancers do not: does biology and location predict chemotherapy benefit?

Authors:  Ali Murat Sedef; Fatih Köse; Ahmet Taner Sümbül; Özlem Doğan; Ali Ayberk Beşen; Ali Murat Tatlı; Hüseyin Mertsoylu; Ahmet Sezer; Sadık Muallaoğlu; Özgür Özyılkan; Hüseyin Abalı
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 6.  Helicobacter pylori update: gastric cancer, reliable therapy, and possible benefits.

Authors:  David Y Graham
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 7.  Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and gastric cancer: should we mind the gap?

Authors:  Yoku Hayakawa; Nilay Sethi; Antonia R Sepulveda; Adam J Bass; Timothy C Wang
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Clonality analysis of synchronous gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma and distal gastric cancer by whole-exome sequencing.

Authors:  Xiaofang Xing; Shuqin Jia; Jianmin Wu; Qin Feng; Bin Dong; Bo Li; Yongning Jia; Fei Shan; Ying'ai Li; Yan Zhang; Ying Hu; Xiaodong Wang; Xiangtao Liu; Weishi Yu; Lianhai Zhang; Zhaode Bu; Aiwen Wu; Ziyu Li; Jiafu Ji
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 7.996

Review 9.  Association Between Helicobacter pylori Eradication and Gastric Cancer Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yi-Chia Lee; Tsung-Hsien Chiang; Chu-Kuang Chou; Yu-Kang Tu; Wei-Chih Liao; Ming-Shiang Wu; David Y Graham
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-years for 32 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  Christina Fitzmaurice; Christine Allen; Ryan M Barber; Lars Barregard; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Hermann Brenner; Daniel J Dicker; Odgerel Chimed-Orchir; Rakhi Dandona; Lalit Dandona; Tom Fleming; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Jamie Hancock; Roderick J Hay; Rachel Hunter-Merrill; Chantal Huynh; H Dean Hosgood; Catherine O Johnson; Jost B Jonas; Jagdish Khubchandani; G Anil Kumar; Michael Kutz; Qing Lan; Heidi J Larson; Xiaofeng Liang; Stephen S Lim; Alan D Lopez; Michael F MacIntyre; Laurie Marczak; Neal Marquez; Ali H Mokdad; Christine Pinho; Farshad Pourmalek; Joshua A Salomon; Juan Ramon Sanabria; Logan Sandar; Benn Sartorius; Stephen M Schwartz; Katya A Shackelford; Kenji Shibuya; Jeff Stanaway; Caitlyn Steiner; Jiandong Sun; Ken Takahashi; Stein Emil Vollset; Theo Vos; Joseph A Wagner; Haidong Wang; Ronny Westerman; Hajo Zeeb; Leo Zoeckler; Foad Abd-Allah; Muktar Beshir Ahmed; Samer Alabed; Noore K Alam; Saleh Fahed Aldhahri; Girma Alem; Mulubirhan Assefa Alemayohu; Raghib Ali; Rajaa Al-Raddadi; Azmeraw Amare; Yaw Amoako; Al Artaman; Hamid Asayesh; Niguse Atnafu; Ashish Awasthi; Huda Ba Saleem; Aleksandra Barac; Neeraj Bedi; Isabela Bensenor; Adugnaw Berhane; Eduardo Bernabé; Balem Betsu; Agnes Binagwaho; Dube Boneya; Ismael Campos-Nonato; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peggy Chiang; Chioma Chibueze; Abdulaal Chitheer; Jee-Young Choi; Benjamin Cowie; Solomon Damtew; José das Neves; Suhojit Dey; Samath Dharmaratne; Preet Dhillon; Eric Ding; Tim Driscoll; Donatus Ekwueme; Aman Yesuf Endries; Maryam Farvid; Farshad Farzadfar; Joao Fernandes; Florian Fischer; Tsegaye Tewelde G/Hiwot; Alemseged Gebru; Sameer Gopalani; Alemayehu Hailu; Masako Horino; Nobuyuki Horita; Abdullatif Husseini; Inge Huybrechts; Manami Inoue; Farhad Islami; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Spencer James; Mehdi Javanbakht; Sun Ha Jee; Amir Kasaeian; Muktar Sano Kedir; Yousef S Khader; Young-Ho Khang; Daniel Kim; James Leigh; Shai Linn; Raimundas Lunevicius; Hassan Magdy Abd El Razek; Reza Malekzadeh; Deborah Carvalho Malta; Wagner Marcenes; Desalegn Markos; Yohannes A Melaku; Kidanu G Meles; Walter Mendoza; Desalegn Tadese Mengiste; Tuomo J Meretoja; Ted R Miller; Karzan Abdulmuhsin Mohammad; Alireza Mohammadi; Shafiu Mohammed; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Gabriele Nagel; Devina Nand; Quyen Le Nguyen; Sandra Nolte; Felix A Ogbo; Kelechi E Oladimeji; Eyal Oren; Mahesh Pa; Eun-Kee Park; David M Pereira; Dietrich Plass; Mostafa Qorbani; Amir Radfar; Anwar Rafay; Mahfuzar Rahman; Saleem M Rana; Kjetil Søreide; Maheswar Satpathy; Monika Sawhney; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Masood Ali Shaikh; Jun She; Ivy Shiue; Hirbo Roba Shore; Mark G Shrime; Samuel So; Samir Soneji; Vasiliki Stathopoulou; Konstantinos Stroumpoulis; Muawiyyah Babale Sufiyan; Bryan L Sykes; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Fentaw Tadese; Bemnet Amare Tedla; Gizachew Assefa Tessema; J S Thakur; Bach Xuan Tran; Kingsley Nnanna Ukwaja; Benjamin S Chudi Uzochukwu; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Elisabete Weiderpass; Mamo Wubshet Terefe; Henock Gebremedhin Yebyo; Hassen Hamid Yimam; Naohiro Yonemoto; Mustafa Z Younis; Chuanhua Yu; Zoubida Zaidi; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Zerihun Menlkalew Zenebe; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  One stomach, two subtypes of carcinoma-the differences between distal and proximal gastric cancer.

Authors:  Yuan Zhang; Peng-Shan Zhang; Ze-Yin Rong; Chen Huang
Journal:  Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)       Date:  2021-11-15

2.  Association of dietary patterns and endoscopic gastric mucosal atrophy in an adult Chinese population.

Authors:  Song Lin; Tao Gao; Chongxiu Sun; Mengru Jia; Chengxia Liu; Xingbin Ma; Aiguo Ma
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Helicobacter pylori Is Associated With Precancerous and Cancerous Lesions of the Gastric Cardia Mucosa: Results of a Large Population-Based Study in China.

Authors:  Shuanghua Xie; Shaoming Wang; Liyan Xue; Daniel R S Middleton; Chentao Guan; Changqing Hao; Jinwu Wang; Bianyun Li; Ru Chen; Xinqing Li; Wenqiang Wei
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 6.244

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.