Gastric cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gastric cancer cancer screening early detection of cancer gastrointestinal endoscopy preventive medicine

Journal

Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1502-7708
Titre abrégé: Scand J Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0060105

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 10 5 2022
medline: 1 10 2022
entrez: 9 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Gastric cancer (GC) screening is recommended in high-risk populations, although screening methods and intervals vary. In intermediate-risk populations, screening through esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) may be considered depending on local resources. The aim of this study was to compare GC screening methods regarding effect on mortality, diagnostic yield and adherence. Systematic review and meta-analysis including studies evaluating population-based GC screening. Search was conducted in three online databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov), along with manual search. Forty-four studies were included. Studies in upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) demonstrated that GC screening was associated with significantly lower GC mortality rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 - 0.73). Benefits on mortality were also found in EGD and serum pepsinogen (PG) studies. EGD was associated with significantly higher GC (0.55%, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.75%) and early-GC (EGC) detection rates (0.48%, 95% CI 0.34 - 0.65%) when compared to UGIS (GC 0.19%, 95% CI 0.10 - 0.31%; EGC 0.08%, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.13%) and PG (GC 0.10%, 95% CI 0.05 - 0.16%; EGC 0.10%, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.19%). Non-invasive methods tended to higher adherence rates when compared to EGD. Regardless of the screening method, individualized recruitment performed better. Screening positively impacted GC mortality rates. EGD was associated with higher diagnostic yield, while UGIS and PG tended to higher adherence rates. Screening uptake was predominantly impacted by recruitment strategies independently of the adopted method.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Gastric cancer (GC) screening is recommended in high-risk populations, although screening methods and intervals vary. In intermediate-risk populations, screening through esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) may be considered depending on local resources. The aim of this study was to compare GC screening methods regarding effect on mortality, diagnostic yield and adherence.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis including studies evaluating population-based GC screening. Search was conducted in three online databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov), along with manual search.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies were included. Studies in upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) demonstrated that GC screening was associated with significantly lower GC mortality rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 - 0.73). Benefits on mortality were also found in EGD and serum pepsinogen (PG) studies. EGD was associated with significantly higher GC (0.55%, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.75%) and early-GC (EGC) detection rates (0.48%, 95% CI 0.34 - 0.65%) when compared to UGIS (GC 0.19%, 95% CI 0.10 - 0.31%; EGC 0.08%, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.13%) and PG (GC 0.10%, 95% CI 0.05 - 0.16%; EGC 0.10%, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.19%). Non-invasive methods tended to higher adherence rates when compared to EGD. Regardless of the screening method, individualized recruitment performed better.
DISCUSSION
Screening positively impacted GC mortality rates. EGD was associated with higher diagnostic yield, while UGIS and PG tended to higher adherence rates. Screening uptake was predominantly impacted by recruitment strategies independently of the adopted method.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35531944
doi: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2068966
doi:

Substances chimiques

Pepsinogen A 9001-10-9

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1178-1188

Auteurs

Lídia Faria (L)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

João Carlos Silva (JC)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Gastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia e Espinho (CHVNG/E), Porto, Portugal.

Marta Rodríguez-Carrasco (M)

Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Pedro Pimentel-Nunes (P)

Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Mário Dinis-Ribeiro (M)

Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Diogo Libânio (D)

Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH