Screening for GI cancer and payment mechanisms

Waye, Jerome D.; Aabakken, Lars; Armengol-Miro, J. R.; P, Llorens; Williams, Christopher; Zhang, Qilian

doi:10.1067/mge.2002.120319

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because endoscopy is more expensive than UGIS [28,29], it may not be a cost-effective screening tool in the West, where the incidence of gastric cancer is low. Simulation data, however, suggest that biennial endoscopic mass screening for stomach cancer is costeffective in moderate-to-high-risk populations, such as in Chinese men 50-70 years old (age-standardized rate, 25.9 of 100 000) [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of repeated endoscopic screening on the incidence and treatment of gastric cancer in health screenees

Nam¹,

Choi

Park³

et al. 2009

European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of repeated endoscopic screening on the incidence and treatment of gastric cancer in health screenees

Nam¹,

Choi

Park³

et al. 2009

European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in the absence of screening, patients present with advanced disease, and their prognosis is poor. There is a nationwide program for the detection of gastric cancer in Chile using screening endoscopy in symptomatic patients 58 . Before these screening programs, only 40% of patients who were found to have gastric cancer could be treated surgically, and there was only a 3% 5‐year survival rate.…”

Section: Gastric Cancer Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a nationwide program for the detection of gastric cancer in Chile using screening endoscopy in symptomatic patients. 58 Before these screening programs, only 40% of patients who were found to have gastric cancer could be treated surgically, and there was only a 3% 5-year survival rate. After the induction of endoscopic screening programs, there has been a 75% 5-year survival rate because they have markedly increased the number of early gastric cancers.…”

Section: Comparison To Endoscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using serum pepsinogens wisely in a clinical practice

Miki

Urita

2007

J of Digest Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serum pepsinogen (PG) has been used as biomarkers of gastric inflammation and mucosal status, including atrophic change, before the discovery of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). Serum pepsinogen I (PG I) and pepsinogen II (PG II) levels are known to increase in the presence of H. pylori-related nonatrophic chronic gastritis. The measurement of serum PG provides much information on the presence of intestinal metaplasia as well as atrophic gastritis. The eradication of H. pylori provokes a significant change in serum PG values: it reduces both PG I and PG II and elevates the PG I to PG II ratio. Recently, the serum PG test method has been the first screening step in Japan, as well as photofluorography. Serum PG tests are used to screen for high risk subjects with atrophic gastritis, rather than as a test for cancer itself. Unlike photofluorography or endoscopy, serum PG screening can identify nonulcerated differentiated asymptomatic cancer, irrespective of the size and location of the lesion. Most cases detected by the PG method are asymptomatic early gastric cancers and are limited to the mucosa, which are particularly well suited for endoscopic treatment. The PG method can contribute greatly to the patients' quality of life.KEY WORDS: atrophic gastritis, gastric cancer screening, non-atrophic gastritis, serum pepsinogens I and II.

show abstract

“…Therefore, this endoscopic screening program should be evaluated in terms of the mortality due to gastric cancer. In addition, from the aspect of medical economics, despite its diagnostic advantages, its cost is much higher and it requires more staff and technical expertise compared to radiology [17,44]. In financial terms, perhaps its economic efficiency is low.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%