DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF GASTROPANEL® FOR ATROPHIC GASTRITIS IN BRAZILIAN SUBJECTS AND THE EFFECT OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS

Pepsinogen I, pepsinogen II, gastrin-17, and Helicobacter pylori serological biomarkers in the diagnosis of precursor lesions of gastric cancer

Introduction

Atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia are precursor lesions of gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of the biomarkers pepsinogen I(PgI), pepsinogen II (PgII), gastrin-17, and H. pylori antibodies in the identification of precursor lesions.

Methods

We studied 129 patients with gastric symptoms. The biomarker status was determined using GastroPanel by means of the ELISA-technique.

Results

Biomarkers detected atrophy in 14% of the subjects, and 49.6% had positive antibodies for H. pylori. A PgI/PgII ratio < 3 was an important risk biomarker for precursor lesions in our population (OR = 9.171, 95% CI: 1.723-48.799, p = 0.009); however, biomarkers showed low accuracy with histopathological study.

Conclusions

In the Western Mexican population, precursor lesions (AG, IM) are common in adults (45%) with dyspepsia but infrequent in children (8%). H. pylori infection was detected in 41.3% of adults and 16.0% of children. Of the studied biomarkers, a PgI/PgII ratio < 3 was an important risk factor for precursor lesions such as AG or IM in our population, with an OR of 9.171 (95% CI: 1.723-48.799, p = 0.009).

Non-Invasive Markers for the Detection of Gastric Precancerous Conditions

Gastric cancer (GC) is still one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with a high mortality rate, despite improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. To diminish the GC burden, a modification of the current diagnostic paradigm, and especially endoscopic diagnosis of symptomatic individuals, is necessary. In this review article, we present a broad review and the current knowledge status on serum biomarkers, including pepsinogens, gastrin, Gastropanel®, autoantibodies, and novel biomarkers, allowing us to estimate the risk of gastric precancerous conditions (GPC)-atrophic gastritis and gastric intestinal metaplasia. The aim of the article is to emphasize the role of non-invasive testing in GC prevention. This comprehensive review describes the pathophysiological background of investigated biomarkers, their status and performance based on available data, as well as their clinical applicability. We point out future perspectives of non-invasive testing and possible new biomarkers opportunities.

Diagnostic performances of pepsinogens and gastrin-17 for atrophic gastritis and gastric cancer in Mongolian subjects

In Mongolia, gastric cancer morbidity and mortality are high, and more than 80 percent of cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage. This study aimed to evaluate pepsinogens (PGIs) and gastrin-17 (G-17) levels and to determine the diagnostic performances for gastric cancer and chronic atrophic gastritis among Mongolian individuals. We enrolled a total of 120 subjects, including gastric cancer (40), atrophic gastritis (40), and healthy control (40), matched by age (±2) and sex. Pepsinogen I (PGI), Pepsinogen II (PGII), G-17, and H. pylori IgG levels were measured using GastroPanel ELISA kit (Biohit, Helsinki, Finland). Also, PGI to PGII ratio (PGR) was calculated. For atrophic gastritis, when the optimal cut-off value of PGI was ≤75.07 ng/ml, the sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 50%, respectively; when the optimal cut-off value of PGR was ≤6.25, sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 44.7%, respectively. For gastric cancer, when the optimal cut-off value of PGI was ≤35.25 ng/ml, the sensitivity and specificity were 47.2% and 86.8%, respectively; when the optimal cut-off value of PGR was ≤5.27, sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 60.5%, respectively. Combinations of biomarkers with risk factors could improve diagnostic accuracy (AUC for atrophic gastritis 74.8, 95% CI 64.0–85.7, p<0.001; AUC for gastric cancer 75.5, 95% CI 64.2–86.8, p<0.001). PGI, PGR biomarkers combined with the risk of age, family history of gastric cancer, and previous gastric disease could not be an alternative test for upper endoscopy but might be a supportive method which is identifying individuals at medium- and high risk of gastric cancer and precancerous lesions who may need upper endoscopy.