4.7 Review

Prediction of Chronic Atrophic Gastritis and Gastric Neoplasms by Serum Pepsinogen Assay: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8050657

Keywords

gastritis; atrophic; pepsinogens; gastric neoplasms

Funding

  1. Bio and Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF)
  2. Korean government, Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) [NRF2017M3A9E8033253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Serum pepsinogen assay (sPGA), which reveals serum pepsinogen (PG) I concentration and the PG I/PG II ratio, is a non-invasive test for predicting chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) and gastric neoplasms. Although various cut-off values have been suggested, PG I 70 ng/mL and a PG I/PG II ratio of 3 have been proposed. However, previous meta-analyses reported insufficient systematic reviews and only pooled outcomes, which cannot determine the diagnostic validity of sPGA with a cut-off value of PG I 70 ng/mL and/or PG I/PG II ratio 3. We searched the core databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase) from their inception to April 2018. Fourteen and 43 studies were identified and analyzed for the diagnostic performance in CAG and gastric neoplasms, respectively. Values for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve with a cut-off value of PG I 70 ng/mL and PG I/PG II ratio 3 to diagnose CAG were 0.59, 0.89, 12, and 0.81, respectively and for diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC) these values were 0.59, 0.73, 4, and 0.7, respectively. Methodological quality and ethnicity of enrolled studies were found to be the reason for the heterogeneity in CAG diagnosis. Considering the high specificity, non-invasiveness, and easily interpretable characteristics, sPGA has potential for screening of CAG or GC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available