ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is known to be capable of causing chronic inflammation of the gastric mucosa that slowly progresses through the premalignant stages, reaching localized gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Its outcome is closely related to the stage at which diagnosis is made. The aim of the present study was to determine cost-benefit by comparing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, serum pepsinogen detection, and no screening at all. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Utilizing Markov chains and Monte Carlo simulation, the costs and effects of various detection modalities were simulated to analyze the cost-benefit of each strategy. For our population, we used the published data of patients with gastric cancer, applicable to the Mexican population. RESULTS: The results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The best strategy was serum pepsinogen determination, followed by the strategy of endoscopic examination with continued monitoring every 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of serum pepsinogen serology and directed endoscopic examination (and continued monitoring, if necessary) for GAC screening could be a cost-effective intervention in Mexico, despite the low-to-moderate general prevalence of the disease.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Helicobacter Infections , Stomach Neoplasms , Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Helicobacter Infections/diagnosis , Helicobacter Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Mexico , Pepsinogen A , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is known to be capable of causing chronic inflammation of the gastric mucosa that slowly progresses through the premalignant stages, reaching localized gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Its outcome is closely related to the stage at which diagnosis is made. The aim of the present study was to determine cost-benefit by comparing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, serum pepsinogen detection, and no screening at all. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Utilizing Markov chains and Monte Carlo simulation, the costs and effects of various detection modalities were simulated to analyze the cost-benefit of each strategy. For our population, we used the published data of patients with gastric cancer, applicable to the Mexican population. RESULTS: The results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The best strategy was serum pepsinogen determination, followed by the strategy of endoscopic examination with continued monitoring every 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of serum pepsinogen serology and directed endoscopic examination (and continued monitoring, if necessary) for GAC screening could be a cost-effective intervention in Mexico, despite the low-to-moderate general prevalence of the disease.