4.5 Article

Gastric Parietal Cell Antibodies, Helicobacter Pylori Infection, and Chronic Atrophic Gastritis: Evidence from a Large Population-based Study in Germany

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 821-826

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1343

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Baden Wuertemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Striking similarities between autoimmune gastritis and Helicobacter Pylori (H. pylori)-associated gastritis have suggested a potential link between these two pathologic conditions in the progression of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG); however, evidence has remained conflicting. Methods: Serum pepsinogen I and II, and antibodies against H. pylori in general, the cytotoxin-associated gene A protein (CagA) and parietal cells were measured by ELISA in 9,684 subjects aged 50 to 74 years. Antigastric parietal cell antibody (APCA) prevalence was examined in the overall population and according to sex, age, and H. pylori serostatus. The association between APCA prevalence and CAG was assessed by logistic regression, overall and according to H. pylori status, controlling for potential confounding factors. Results: Overall APCA prevalence was 19.5%. APCA prevalence was strongly associated with CAG, and the association was increasing with increasing severity of CAG. Furthermore, the association between APCA and CAG was even stronger among H. pylori-negative subjects [odds ratio (OR) = 11.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5-17.1)] than among H. pylori-positive subjects (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 2.1-3.3). Conclusions: APCA may play a role on the development of gastric atrophy, irrespective of H. pylori infection. Impact: Assessment of APCA might be a useful complement to established markers (such as pepsinogens and H. pylori antibodies) in screening for CAG. (c) 2013 AACR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available