Aim:To assess the validity of the measurement of pepsinogen I and II as a screening test for gastric cancer and pre-malignant lesions, namely low-grade dysplasia, both in the general population and in selected groups of patients. Methods:A meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity results from individual papers on the use of the pepsinogen test. An intrinsic cut-off effect was assumed and a random effect model was used for pooling.Results: Forty-two data sets were included: 27 (64%) population-based screening studies (n=296,553) and 15 (36%) sets of selected individuals (n=4385). Homogenous sensitivity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) estimates were found in studies using both pepsinogen I levels and pepsinogen I/II ratio calculations. Pooled pairs of sensitivity and false positive rates (FPr) for pepsinogen I ≤70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3, pepsinogen I ≤50; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3, and pepsinogen I ≤30; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤2, were sensitivity 77%/FPr 27%, sensitivity 68%/FPr 31%, and sensitivity 52%/FPr 84%, respectively. Positive predictive values (PPV) varied between 0.77% and 1.25%, and negative predictive values (NPV) varied between 99.08% and 99.90%. In selected groups, pooling was only possible when considering pepsinogen I ≤70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3: giving sensitivity 57%, specificity 80%, PPV 15% and NPV 83%. As for the diagnosis of dysplasia, studies considering pepsinogen I <50; pepsinogen I/II ratio <3 obtained sensitivity 65% and specificity ranging from 74%-85%, both with NPV >95%. Conclusion:Pepsinogen test definition should include pepsinogen I/II ratio as consistency was obtained, both in population based studies and in selected groups for those studies that used pepsinogen I serum levels together with pepsinogen I/II ratio for screening for gastric cancer in highincidence regions other than Japan. Further studies of this test in the management of high-risk patients seem to be worthwhile.

A 60‐year‐old man underwent routine colonoscopy, and was noted to have a pedunculated polyp in the sigmoid colon. The pathologic diagnosis was adenoma, and due to patient’s personal circumstances, the lesion was left untreated. The colonoscopic examination was repeated 4 years and 11 months later, to find that the polyp had transformed into an elevated lesion with irregularly depressed surface. The patient was diagnosed as having early sigmoid cancer, and underwent sigmoidectomy. The histologic examination of the excised specimen revealed well‐differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion into the submucosal layer. Through studying the natural course of colon cancer, it has become known that the advanced cancers commonly develop from polyps with short pedicles (sessile polyps). This case represents an early sigmoid cancer developed from a pedunculated polyp, which differs from the current mainstream concept of ‘polyp‐cancer sequence of colon cancer.’

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract