European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014
Accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of atrophic gastritis.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McNicholl Adrian G, Forné Montserrat, Barrio Jesus, De la Coba Cristobal, González Begoña, Rivera Robin, Esteve Maria, Fernandez-Bañares Fernando, Madrigal Beatriz, Gras-Miralles Beatriz, Perez-Aisa Angeles, Viver-Pi-Sunyer Jose M, Bory Felipe, Rosinach Merce, Loras Carmen, Esteban Carlos, Santolaria Santos, Gomollon Fernando, Valle Julio, Gisbert Javier P, Helicobacter pylori Study Group of Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG)
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that GastroPanel might be a useful tool for the diagnosis of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) measuring four biomarkers in blood: basal gastrin-17 (G17), pepsinogen I and II (PGI and PGII), and Helicobacter pylori antibodies.
AIM: To determine the accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG.
METHODS: This was a prospective, blinded, multicenter study that included dyspeptic patients. G17, PGI, and PGII were determined by enzyme immunoassays. Three antrum and two corpus biopsies were obtained for standard histological analysis and rapid urease test. Biopsies were analyzed by a single blinded expert pathologist.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included (77% women, mean age 44 years, 51% H. pylori positive, 17% with CAG). G17 was reduced in patients with antrum CAG (5.4 vs. 13.4 pmol/l; P<0.01) and increased in patients with corpus CAG (11 vs. 24 pmol/l; P<0.05), but its accuracy was only acceptable in the case of corpus localization [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 74%]; PGII difference was almost statistically significant only when testing for corpus atrophy (33 vs. 21 μg/l; P=0.05; AUC=72%). The PGI and PGI/PGII ratio showed no significant differences (AUCs were all unacceptably low). Helicobacter pylori antibody levels were higher in H. pylori-infected patients (251 vs. 109 EIU, P=0.01; AUC=70). The accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG was as follows: sensitivity 50%; specificity 80%; positive 25% and negative 92% predictive values; and positive 2.4 and negative 0.6 likelihood ratios.
CONCLUSION: GastroPanel is not accurate enough for the diagnosis of CAG; thus, its systematic use in clinical practice cannot be recommended.
AIM: To determine the accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG.
METHODS: This was a prospective, blinded, multicenter study that included dyspeptic patients. G17, PGI, and PGII were determined by enzyme immunoassays. Three antrum and two corpus biopsies were obtained for standard histological analysis and rapid urease test. Biopsies were analyzed by a single blinded expert pathologist.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included (77% women, mean age 44 years, 51% H. pylori positive, 17% with CAG). G17 was reduced in patients with antrum CAG (5.4 vs. 13.4 pmol/l; P<0.01) and increased in patients with corpus CAG (11 vs. 24 pmol/l; P<0.05), but its accuracy was only acceptable in the case of corpus localization [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 74%]; PGII difference was almost statistically significant only when testing for corpus atrophy (33 vs. 21 μg/l; P=0.05; AUC=72%). The PGI and PGI/PGII ratio showed no significant differences (AUCs were all unacceptably low). Helicobacter pylori antibody levels were higher in H. pylori-infected patients (251 vs. 109 EIU, P=0.01; AUC=70). The accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG was as follows: sensitivity 50%; specificity 80%; positive 25% and negative 92% predictive values; and positive 2.4 and negative 0.6 likelihood ratios.
CONCLUSION: GastroPanel is not accurate enough for the diagnosis of CAG; thus, its systematic use in clinical practice cannot be recommended.