Dataset Information

Diagnostic Value of Serum Pepsinogen Levels for Screening Gastric Cancer and Atrophic Gastritis in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pepsinogens (PGs) can be used for gastric cancer (GC) screening, but the cutoff levels vary among studies, and PG levels are influenced by numerous factors. The aim of this article is to examine the diagnostic value of PG levels and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) status for GC and atrophic gastritis screening in asymptomatic individuals undergoing health checkup in China.

Patients and methods

This was a multicenter cross-sectional study of subjects who underwent health checkup from 10/2016 to 10/2018 at nine International Healthcare Centers in China. All participants underwent gastroscopy and pathological examination, serum PG, ¹³C-urea breath test, and/or Hp serological current infection marker rapid test, all on the same day. PG-related parameters were analyzed in different Hp subgroups and regions.

Results

The patients were grouped as non-atrophic (NAG, n = 1,590), mild to moderate atrophic (MAG, n = 273), severe atrophic (SAG, n = 49), and GC (n = 10). The serum PG levels in these groups decreased with increasing pathological severity. In the same pathological groups, PGI and PGII levels were higher in the Hp-positive subgroup, while PGR (PGI/PGII ratio) was lower (P < 0.05). The best cutoff values for atrophy diagnosis were PGI ≤73.1 ng/ml and PGR ≤9.8, for severe atrophy were PGI ≤63.9 ng/ml and PGR ≤9.09, and for GC was PGR ≤4.7 (all P < 0.05 and area under the curve >0.7). The cutoff points varied with Hp status and China regions.

Conclusion

Serum PG levels might be used for the screening of gastric atrophic gastritis lesions. The results suggest that different cutoff values should possibly be used in different Hp status groups and geographical regions, but it will have to be validated in future studies. Future studies should also examine the value of PG levels for GC detection.

SUBMITTER: Tong Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8421685 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHuman pepsinogens are considered promising serological biomarkers for the screening of atrophic gastritis (AG) and gastric cancer (GC). However, there has been controversy in the literature with respect to the validity of serum pepsinogen (SPG) for the detection of GC and AG. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SPG in GC and AG detection.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for correlative original studies published up to September 30, 2014. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR+), negative diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR-), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were used to evaluate SPG in GC and AG screening based on bivariate random effects models. The inter-study heterogeneity was evaluated by the I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed using Begg and Mazumdar's test. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity.ResultsIn total, 31 studies involving 1,520 GC patients and 2,265 AG patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR for GC screening using SPG were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60-0.76), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.82), 2.57 (95% CI: 1.82-3.62), and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34-0.54), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72-0.80) and 6.01 (95% CI: 3.69-9.79), respectively. For AG screening, the summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55-0.80), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77-0.94), 5.80 (95% CI: 3.06-10.99), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.24-0.51), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88) and 16.50 (95% CI: 8.18-33.28), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG for GC screening yielded sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.75), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79-0.80), DOR of 6.92 (95% CI: 4.36-11.00), and AUC of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.81), while the use of concentration of PGI yielded sensitivity of 0.55 (95% CI: 0.51-0.60), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.82), DOR of 6.88 (95% CI: 2.30-20.60), and AUC of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.92). For AG screening, the use of ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG yielded sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.52-0.83), specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.68-0.93), DOR of 11.51 (95% CI: 6.14-21.56), and AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86), the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII yield sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), DOR of 24.64 (95% CI: 6.95-87.37), and AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), concurrently, the use of concentration of PGI yield sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.38-0.54), specificity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), DOR of 19.86 (95% CI: 0.86-456.91), and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52-1.00).ConclusionSPG has great potential as a noninvasive, population-based screening tool in GC and AG screening. In addition, given the potential publication bias and high heterogeneity of the included studies, further high quality studies are required in the future.