Gastric cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Faria, Lídia Dornelas de; Silva, J C; Rodríguez-Carrasco, Marta; Pimentel‐Nunes, Pedro; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário; Libânio, Diogo

doi:10.1080/00365521.2022.2068966

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 127 papers were searched, two of which were systematic reviews of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer mortality reduction 11,12 . There were two fully reviewed studies comparing endoscopic screening with no screening for mortality reduction, and a meta‐analysis was not performed in the study by Faria et al 12 . In addition to the two studies included by Faria et al 12 ,.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 127 papers were searched, two of which were systematic reviews of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer mortality reduction. 11,12 There were two fully reviewed studies comparing endoscopic screening with no screening for mortality reduction, and a meta-analysis was not performed in the study by Faria et al 12 In addition to the two studies included by Faria et al 12 , Zhang et al included a total of six cohort studies and four nested case-control studies and performed a meta-analysis. Therefore, the pooled RR of 0.58 in the study by Zhang et al 11 was adopted in the present study.…”

Section: Pooled Rr In Endoscopic Screening For Gastric Cancer-related...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population effectiveness of endoscopy screening for mortality reduction in gastric cancer

Ishii,

Shiratori,

Ishikane

et al. 2023

DEN Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesNo randomized controlled trials have compared endoscopic screening with no screening for gastric cancer on an intention‐to‐screen basis, and the population‐based evidence is insufficient. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to the population effectiveness of cancer screening, estimate the number needed to screen (NNS) to reduce one gastric cancer‐related death, and evaluate the expected mortality‐rate reduction in endoscopic screening for gastric cancer in 184 countries.MethodsFactors contributing to the attributable risk, NNS, and mortality‐rate reduction were identified. A rapid review was performed in PubMed to estimate the pooled relative risk of endoscopic screening compared to that of no screening for mortality reduction. NNSs and mortality‐rate reduction were estimated using the pooled relative risk and GLOBOCAN data.ResultsThe crude mortality rate, the effectiveness of the screening modality, and the screened rate contributed to the attributable risk, NNS, and mortality‐rate reduction in cancer screening. The pooled relative risk was 0.58 in endoscopy screening compared to that in no screening. NNSs and expected mortality‐rate reduction differed across countries and ranged from 2522 to 91,575 and 0.2 to 7.9 (per 100,000 individuals) for the screened rate of 20%, respectively.ConclusionsIn addition to the effectiveness of the used modality, the disease burden and screened rate were important in the population effectiveness of cancer screening. Regarding the high NNSs and the low expected mortality‐rate reduction, population‐based endoscopic screening seems not to be effective in many countries, and these results are meaningful in decision‐making regarding the introduction of endoscopic screening.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pooled Rr In Endoscopic Screening For Gastric Cancer-related...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Population effectiveness of endoscopy screening for mortality reduction in gastric cancer

Ishii,

Shiratori,

Ishikane

et al. 2023

DEN Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the cancer screening methods, serum pepsinogen (PG) assay decreases gastric cancer mortality by diagnosing corpus atrophy. In a recent meta‐analysis study, early gastric cancer (EGC) detection rates were highest using gastroscopy (0.48%), followed by the PG assay (0.10%) and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series (0.08%) 2 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between the GastroPanel test and the serum pepsinogen assay interpreted with the ABC method—A prospective study

Lee,

Ahn,

Moon

2024

Helicobacter

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimsThis study aimed to validate Helicobacter pylori serological and pepsinogen (PG) assays for detecting infection and gastric neoplasm.MethodsIndividuals who underwent serum Chorus H. pylori and HBI PG assays were included from May to September 2023. The GastroPanel test was performed using the same blood sample. HBI assay findings were interpreted with the ABC method using the criteria of corpus atrophy (PG I ≤ 70 ng/mL & I/II ≤3) and advanced corpus atrophy (PG I ≤ 30 ng/mL & I/II ≤2).ResultsA total of 144 H. pylori‐infected and 184 non‐infected Koreans were analyzed. The Chorus test (sensitivity 97.2%, specificity 89.1%) showed higher area under the curve (0.993 vs. 0.972, p = 0.003) than the GastroPanel test (sensitivity 95.8%, specificity 86.4%). Using the GastroSoft application, the incidence of gastric neoplasms was highest in the corpus atrophy group (50%), followed by the low acid‐output (25.8%), H. pylori infection (11.6%), and antral atrophy (9.1%) groups. There were no gastric neoplasms in the normal and high acid output groups. Using the ABC method, the incidence of gastric neoplasms was highest in the corpus atrophy groups (23.8% in Groups C and D), followed by Group B (12.3%) and Group A (2.4%). Corpus atrophy interpreted with the GastroSoft showed poor agreement (k = 0.225) with corpus atrophy interpreted with the ABC method, whereas it showed excellent agreement (k = 0.854) with advanced corpus atrophy.ConclusionsAlthough the Chorus test was more accurate than the GastroPanel test, both assays discriminated high‐risk individuals by detecting atrophy or infection. There were no gastric neoplasms in the normal or high acid‐output groups (GastroSoft application), and gastric neoplasm incidence was lowest in Group A (ABC method). Corpus atrophy determined by GastroSoft application is more consistent with advanced corpus atrophy determined by the ABC method than is corpus atrophy.

show abstract

“…This means that in Europe if a CRC screening program is already in place (by means of FOBT or stand-alone colonoscopy) all countries with an intermediate incidence rate of GC such as Albania, Belarus, Macedonia, Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Portugal, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Croatia (age-standardized incidence rate from 10.3 to 20.1), might benefit by providing a screening UGIE in combination with colonoscopy for their populations [12]. The abovementioned cost-utility analysis assumed full compliance with endoscopic screening although it is known that in countries with well-established GC screening programs, the adherence rates are well below 100% [11,13]. Furthermore, the adherence rate to dual screening (CRC and GC) is not known in European intermediate-risk countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of the PERCEPT-PREVENT tool to determine risk perception and attitudes towards digestive cancer screening

Silva,

Santos,

Dinis-Ribeiro

et al. 2024

European Journal of Gastroenterology &Amp; Hepatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended worldwide, while gastric cancer (GC) screening may also be defendable in some settings. However, adherence rates and factors influencing participation are not well characterized. This study aimed to validate a tool to determine risk perception of CRC and GC and also of endoscopy-related complications. Methods A questionnaire in CRC risk perception based on the Health Belief Model was used. Forward/backward translation (English-Portuguese) and cultural adaptation were performed. After revision by a panel of experts, the questionnaire was adapted to target GC risk perception and perceptions towards endoscopy-related complications. The final version of the questionnaire (PERCEPT-PREVENT tool) was applied to 44 individuals, through telephonic interview, at enrolment and at intervals ≤3 weeks. Test–retest reliability and agreement were assessed. Results Almost perfect reliability between test and retest was obtained for CRC symptom knowledge score (ICC = 0.88), risk factor knowledge score (ICC = 0.89), and perceived severity (ICC = 0.84). At least moderate agreement between test and retest was obtained for GC symptom knowledge score (ICC = 0.94), risk factor knowledge score (ICC = 0.92), and perceived severity (ICC = 0.58). Test-retest reliability was assessed for barrier domains [faecal occult blood test ICC = 0.63; colonoscopy ICC = 0.79; upper GI endoscopy (UGIE) ICC = 0.83]. A total of 91% and 98% of participants gave the same answer in the test and retest for preferred method of CRC screening and intention to undergo UGIE for GC screening combined with a screening colonoscopy, respectively. Discussion PERCEPT-PREVENT is a valid and reliable tool for CRC and GC risk perception evaluation.

show abstract

Gastric cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 10 publications

References 54 publications

Population effectiveness of endoscopy screening for mortality reduction in gastric cancer

Population effectiveness of endoscopy screening for mortality reduction in gastric cancer

Comparison between the GastroPanel test and the serum pepsinogen assay interpreted with the ABC method—A prospective study

Development and validation of the PERCEPT-PREVENT tool to determine risk perception and attitudes towards digestive cancer screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About