RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Analysis of serum biomarkers for the assessment of atrophic gastritis (AG), a gastric precancerous lesion, is of growing interest for identification of patients at increased risk of gastric cancer. The aim was to analyze the diagnostic performance of serum pepsinogen testing using another method, chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA), as well as of other new potential biomarkers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sera of patients considered at increased risk of gastric cancer and undergoing upper endoscopy collected in our previous prospective, multicenter study were tested for pepsinogen I (PGI) and II (PGII), interleukin-6 (IL-6), human epididymal protein 4 (HE-4), adiponectin, ferritin and Krebs von den Lungen (KL-6) using the CLEIA. The diagnostic performance for the detection of AG was calculated by taking histology as the reference. RESULTS: In total, 356 patients (162 men (46%); mean age 58.6 (±14.2) years), including 152 with AG, were included. For the detection of moderate to severe corpus AG, sensitivity and specificity of the pepsinogen I/II ratio were of 75.0% (95%CI 57.8-87.9) and 92.6% (88.2-95.8), respectively. For the detection of moderate to severe antrum AG, sensitivity of IL-6 was of 72.2% (95%CI 46.5-90.3). Combination of pepsinogen I/II ratio or HE-4 showed a sensitivity of 85.2% (95%CI 72.9-93.4) for the detection of moderate to severe AG at any location. CONCLUSION: This study shows that PG testing by CLEIA represents an accurate assay for the detection of corpus AG. Additionally, IL-6 and HE-4 may be of interest for the detection of antrum AG. MINI-ABSTRACT: Pepsinogens testing by chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay is accurate for the detection of corpus atrophic gastritis. IL-6 and HE-4 maybe of interest for the detection of antrum atrophic gastritis.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL) may reduce gastric cancer (GC)-related mortality, but some patients with GPL are lost to follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a "phone-call" strategy in surveillance of the lost to follow-up patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among all the patients diagnosed with GPL (atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, low-grade dysplasia) between 2000 and 2015, we identified those who should undergo surveillance endoscopy according to the current guidelines. They were contacted by telephone and invited to undergo endoscopy with gastric biopsies for histological analysis. RESULTS: Among 535 patients with GPL, 134 were contacted. Sixty-two (46%) could not be joined, 36 did not have endoscopy for other reasons, and finally, 36 patients (22 males, median age 65 years) were included. After the median time interval of 57 months between 2 endoscopies, 18 patients showed stability, 11 regression, and 7 progression of GPL, including 1 patient who developed GC. CONCLUSION: Despite several telephone calls, only one-third of the contacted patients could be brought to surveillance endoscopy. Most of the patients showed stability of GPL, but 1 progressed to GC and could be successfully treated.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Analysis of serum biomarkers for the assessment of atrophic gastritis (AG), considered as gastric precancerous lesion, is of growing interest and recommended by current guidelines. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a panel of biomarkers (GastroPanel®) for the detection of AG in France, a country of a low gastric cancer (GC) incidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study, consecutive patients considered at increased risk of GC and undergoing upper endoscopy with gastric biopsies were included. Blood samples were collected for the analysis of GastroPanel® (association of Pepsinogens I and II, Gastrin-17, and Helicobacter pylori serology) using ELISA. The results of GastroPanel® were compared to the results of histology considered as the reference. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2019, 344 patients (148 cases with AG, 196 controls without AG) were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for the detection of AG by GastroPanel® were of 39.9% (95% CI 31.9; 48.2), 93.4% (95% CI 88.9; 96.4), 81.9 (95% CI 71.1; 90.0), and 67.3 (95% CI 61.4; 72.8), respectively. The sensitivity was significantly higher for the detection of severe AG [60.8% (95% CI 46.1; 74.6) P = .015] and corpus AG [61.0% (95% CI 49.2; 72.0), P = .004]. Diagnostic performances of GastroPanel® tended to be better than those of Pepsinogen I alone, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .068). CONCLUSION: Serum pepsinogen and GastroPanel® tests show promising results for the detection of AG, especially of corpus AG and severe AG, in patients at high risk of GC in France.
