Cargando…

The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for gastric cancer (GC) screening is pathology or a barium meal followed by X-ray. This is not applicable to a wide range of screening capabilities due to the lack of operability. This article used a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of pepsinogen (PG) screeni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Ling, Lang, Junjie, Jin, Yuelong, Chen, Yan, Chang, Weiwei, Yao, Yingshui, Yu, Jiegen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30804996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7087232
_version_ 1783392530978570240
author Liu, Ling
Lang, Junjie
Jin, Yuelong
Chen, Yan
Chang, Weiwei
Yao, Yingshui
Yu, Jiegen
author_facet Liu, Ling
Lang, Junjie
Jin, Yuelong
Chen, Yan
Chang, Weiwei
Yao, Yingshui
Yu, Jiegen
author_sort Liu, Ling
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for gastric cancer (GC) screening is pathology or a barium meal followed by X-ray. This is not applicable to a wide range of screening capabilities due to the lack of operability. This article used a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of pepsinogen (PG) screening for GC. METHODS: PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM databases were systematically searched for published studies that used serum PG to diagnose GC. Articles were searched from January 2003 to January 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and evaluated, and the quality of the methodologies evaluated using the QUADAS entry. The meta-analysis (MA) was performed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software. Stata 12.0 software was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were finally included from a total of 169,009 cases. The MA showed a combined sensitivity and specificity of 0.56 (95% CI (0.53–0.59), P < 0.01) and 0.71 (95% CI (0.70-0.71), P < 0.01), respectively. The combined likelihood ratios were +LR = 2.82 (95% CI (2.06–3.86), P < 0.01) and −LR = 0.56 (95% CI (0.45–0.68), P < 0.01). The combined DOR was 5.41 (95% CI (3.64~ 8.06), P < 0.01), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.7468. CONCLUSIONS: Serum PG provides medium levels of sensitivity and specificity for GC assessment. To be used in a clinical setting, further high-quality research must be performed and verified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6360615
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63606152019-02-25 The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Liu, Ling Lang, Junjie Jin, Yuelong Chen, Yan Chang, Weiwei Yao, Yingshui Yu, Jiegen Gastroenterol Res Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for gastric cancer (GC) screening is pathology or a barium meal followed by X-ray. This is not applicable to a wide range of screening capabilities due to the lack of operability. This article used a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of pepsinogen (PG) screening for GC. METHODS: PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM databases were systematically searched for published studies that used serum PG to diagnose GC. Articles were searched from January 2003 to January 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and evaluated, and the quality of the methodologies evaluated using the QUADAS entry. The meta-analysis (MA) was performed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software. Stata 12.0 software was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were finally included from a total of 169,009 cases. The MA showed a combined sensitivity and specificity of 0.56 (95% CI (0.53–0.59), P < 0.01) and 0.71 (95% CI (0.70-0.71), P < 0.01), respectively. The combined likelihood ratios were +LR = 2.82 (95% CI (2.06–3.86), P < 0.01) and −LR = 0.56 (95% CI (0.45–0.68), P < 0.01). The combined DOR was 5.41 (95% CI (3.64~ 8.06), P < 0.01), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.7468. CONCLUSIONS: Serum PG provides medium levels of sensitivity and specificity for GC assessment. To be used in a clinical setting, further high-quality research must be performed and verified. Hindawi 2019-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6360615/ /pubmed/30804996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7087232 Text en Copyright © 2019 Ling Liu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Liu, Ling
Lang, Junjie
Jin, Yuelong
Chen, Yan
Chang, Weiwei
Yao, Yingshui
Yu, Jiegen
The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short The Value of Pepsinogen in GC Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort value of pepsinogen in gc screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30804996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7087232
work_keys_str_mv AT liuling thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT langjunjie thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jinyuelong thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenyan thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT changweiwei thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yaoyingshui thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yujiegen thevalueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuling valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT langjunjie valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jinyuelong valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenyan valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT changweiwei valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yaoyingshui valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yujiegen valueofpepsinogeningcscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis