Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Referencia #3

288 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Referencia #3

  1. 1. Annals of Oncology doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq411review Gastric atrophy and risk of oesophageal cancer and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma—a systematic review and meta-analysis F. Islami1,2,3 , P. Sheikhattari4 , J. S. Ren2 & F. Kamangar4,1 * 1 Digestive Disease Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France; 3 King’s College London, Thames Cancer Registry, London, UK; 4 Department of Public Health Analysis, School of Community Health and Policy, Morgan State University, Baltimore, USA Received 26 May 2010; revised 9 June 2010; accepted 11 June 2010 Background: Several studies have reported an association between gastric atrophy and upper gastrointestinal cancers. Our aim was to summarise the available information and calculate the relative risks (RRs) associated with gastric atrophy for gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA), oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the PubMed and ISI-Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of the relevant articles. Summary RRs and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random-effects models for the association between gastric atrophy, defined histologically or by serum pepsinogen markers, and OSCC, OAC, and GCA. Results: Eighteen articles were included in the meta-analysis; 13, 7, and 3 studies reported on GCA, OSCC, and OAC, respectively. The overall RRs (95% CI) for the three cancer types were: GCA, 2.89 (2.09–3.98); OSCC, 1.94 (1.48–2.55); OAC, 0.51 (0.19–1.37). Several subgroup analyses showed the robustness of the results. In the majority of the analyses, there was low to moderate heterogeneity. Conclusions: This study found two- to threefold increased risk of OSCC and GCA but a possible reduced risk of OAC in people with gastric atrophy. Further studies are needed to establish the association with OAC and causal association with OSCC, and mechanisms of the increased risk need to be investigated for GCA. Key words: cardia adenocarcinoma, gastric atrophy, gastric cancer, meta-analysis, oesophageal cancer, pepsinogen introduction Each year more than 1 million people die of cancers of the oesophagus and stomach [1]. The two predominant histological types of oesophageal cancer, i.e. oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), have distinct risk factors. For example, alcohol consumption is a strong risk factor for OSCC but not for OAC [2]. Likewise, risk factors are not necessarily similar for the two main anatomic subgroups of gastric cancer, i.e. gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and noncardia gastric adenocarcinoma (NCGA) [3]. For example, while Helicobacter pylori is a strong risk factor for NCGA, the association of this organism with GCA is less clear [4]. Atrophy of the gastric mucosa has long been known as a risk factor for NCGA [5–7]. However, the association of atrophy with OSCC, OAC, and GCA is less well studied. Until recently, GCA constituted a minority of all gastric cancers [8, 9]. Therefore in most studies, due to small numbers, the GCA results were either not reported or did not receive enough scrutiny. Higher risk of OSCC was initially reported in patients with pernicious anaemia [10], an autoimmune disease that includes atrophy of the stomach, and also in case series of other patients with atrophy [11]. However, it has received more attention in the past few years after a Swedish case–control study found a strong association [12]. OAC was rare until the 1990s [9, 13], and there are still relatively few studies that have investigated the association between atrophy and this type of cancer. Gastric atrophy is characterised by loss of specialised glands in the stomach and their replacement by metaplastic cells and interstitial fibrosis [14]. Therefore, this condition can be diagnosed using histological examination. With the advent of atrophy, specialised gastric cells in gastric fundus that produce pepsinogen 1 (PG1) are replaced by metaplastic cells of antral type. While serum PG1 level is reduced in gastric atrophy, review *Correspondence to: Dr F. Kamangar, Department of Public Health Analysis, School of Community Health and Policy, Morgan State University, 4530 Portage Avenue Campus, Room 302-D, Baltimore, MD, USA. Tel: +1-443-885-4788; Fax: +1-443-885-4309; E-mail: farin.kamangar@morgan.edu ª The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org Annals of Oncology Advance Access published September 22, 2010 byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  2. 2. pepsinogen 2 (PG2) level remains stable or is even increased because PG2 is produced in the mucosa of the gastric cardia, fundus, antrum, and duodenum [15]. Therefore, atrophy can also be diagnosed with low serum PG1 or a low ratio of serum PG1 to PG2 (PG1:PG2 ratio). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have examined the association between gastric atrophy, defined histologically or by serum pepsinogen markers, and OSCC, OAC, and GCA. methods selection of studies We searched the PubMed and ISI-Web of Science databases for all case– control or cohort studies published in English language on the association of gastric atrophy with oesophageal cancer and GCA risk. We used the following terms to search the PubMed database (esophag* OR oesophag* OR gastric OR stomach OR cardia) AND (cancer OR carcinoma OR adenocarcinoma) AND (‘‘gastritis, atrophic’’ [MeSH] OR (gastric atrophy) OR pepsinogen) AND ((case–control) OR (case–control) OR (cohort) OR (prospective)). Equivalent terms were used to search text words in the ISI- Web of Science database. All results were updated on 4 January 2010. Using this approach, 416 and 273 publications were retrieved from the PubMed and ISI-Web of Science databases, respectively. After considering the matching articles in the two databases as a single article, 552 publications remained for further evaluation. Eleven additional publications were found by manual search of the bibliographies of the relevant original and review articles and added to list. After exclusion of 542 non-relevant articles, three articles [16–18] were excluded because the original or updated information was available in 18 full-text publications that were finally included in the meta-analysis [7, 12,19–34]. More detailed information on the study selection process is presented in supplemental File 1 (available at Annals of Oncology online). To reduce the possibility of missing the published articles, at least two of the authors reviewed each publication. We contacted the authors of one study [28] as further information was required. data extraction and statistical analysis Where data were available, we extracted information on first author, place and year of the study, and other study characteristics such as study design and the control selection method. We also extracted the following information by cancer subtype, when applicable: the number of cases and controls; the crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs), i.e. any ratio measures of effect, including odds ratio, and 95% confidence intervals (CI); and the variables for which the results were adjusted. We used both random-effects models (DerSimonian–Laird method) and fixed-effects models (Mantel–Haenszel method) to calculate summary RRs and 95% CIs. Because both models yielded qualitatively similar results, we only present those from random-effects models. When an individual study presented both crude and adjusted RRs and 95% CIs, we used the maximally adjusted results. We compared gastric atrophy status among cases and controls. The status was determined by direct examination of the gastric tissue specimens or by the level of PG1 or PG1:PG2 ratio in serum samples. Different cut-off points were used for the serologic tests. When results for several cut-off points were presented, we used those that were in more concordance with the cut-off points in other studies, i.e. PG1 < 28 to £ 70 lg/l and PG1:PG2 ratio < 2 to £ 3. If the study reported both PG1 level and PG1:PG2 ratio, we used the latter, because PG1:PG2 ratio may be a more accurate indicator for gastric atrophy than PG1 level [35]. One study that used histology reported the results for gastric atrophy, intestinal metaplasia, and dysplasia separately [33]. We combined the results using a fixed-effects model. We conducted several subgroup analyses. All the included studies were from Asia, Europe, and the United States. It has been suggested that the association between H. pylori and GCA may vary between Western and Eastern countries [36]. Since H. pylori is an important cause of atrophy, we chose to conduct the analyses by geographic region. Several studies recruited their control participants from those who referred to gastroenterology clinics. As the rate of gastric atrophy in those hospital- based controls might be different from the rate in the general population, we performed subgroup analyses that included only population-based controls. Consistent with our previous meta-analyses [37, 38], we present the results for larger studies, defined as those with standard errors < 0.5, separately. Since the association between gastric atrophy and oesophageal and cardia cancer could be confounded by other factors, we also calculated and present the summary of adjusted RRs (95% CIs) for studies in which the results were controlled (by matching or adjustments) for the main risk factors, i.e. age for all cancers, tobacco and alcohol use for OSCC, and tobacco use and body mass index or total energy intake (as an indirect indicator of body mass index) for OAC and GCA. As the sensitivity of PG1 level and PG1:PG2 ratio for detection of gastric atrophy may be different, the studies that reported PG1:PG2 ratio were also analysed separately. We used Begg and Mazumdar’s method to calculate P for rank correlation and Egger’s weighted regression method to calculate P for publication bias. We also plotted Begg’s funnel plot to examine small study effects. To examine heterogeneity among studies, the Q-statistic (using Mantel–Haenszel weights) and the I2 statistic were calculated. Throughout the article, two-sided P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. results Table 1 shows summary characteristics of the 18 studies included in this meta-analysis, of which 13, 7, and 3 studies reported on GCA, OSCC, and OAC, respectively. Except for two studies in which histological examination of the stomach tissue was used to determine gastric atrophy, the other studies measured pepsinogen level in serum samples. The majority of the studies (n = 14) were population based. gastric cardia adenocarcinoma Thirteen studies were included in this analysis (Figure 1A and Table 2). The overall RR (95% CI) was 2.89 (2.09–3.98). The I2 statistic was 34%, suggesting little to moderate heterogeneity, and the P value associated with the Q-statistic was 0.11 (Table 2). Neither Begg and Mazumdar’s method (P for rank correlation = 1.00) nor Egger’s weighted regression method (P for bias = 0.65) showed evidence for publication bias. Begg’s funnel plot for the association is shown in supplemental Figure S1A (available at Annals of Oncology online). All subgroup analyses showed a statistically significant association between gastric atrophy and GCA risk (Table 2). The summary RR (95% CI) was 2.72 (1.67–4.44) for studies from Asia, 3.07 (1.95–4.83) for studies from Europe/the United States, 2.65 (1.84–3.81) for studies with population-based controls, 2.73 (1.94–3.83) for large studies, 2.56 (1.54–4.25) for studies with adjusted results, and 2.43 (1.78–3.32) for studies that reported PG1:PG2 ratio. There was no evidence for significant heterogeneity in the subgroup analyses, except for the adjusted analyses, which showed a marginally significant Q-statistic (P= 0.06). We also conducted an analysis after excluding the two studies with fewer than 10 cases [19, 21]; the results were the same as the overall estimates (data not shown). review Annals of Oncology 2 | Islami et al. byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  3. 3. Table 1. Summary of studies on the association between gastric atrophy and risk of oesophageal and gastric cardia cancer Study; country Case/control Studied cancer Method of diagnosis for atrophic gastritisa Adjusted resultsb Study design Parsonnet et al. [7]; United States 30/30 GCA S: PG1 < 50 lg/l No Nested CCS (in a cohort of subscribers to a medical care program) Hattori et al. [19]; Japan 1/4858 GCA S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3 and PG1 £ 70 mg/l; PG1:PG2 ratio < 3 and PG1 < 50 lg/l; PG1:PG2 ratio £ 2 and PG1 £ 30 lg/l No Screening study among steel workers, and follow-up for one year Fukuda et al. [20]; Japan 52/112 GCAc S: PG1:PG2 ratio < 3; PG1 < 30 lg/l No H-B CCS Ye et al. [12]; Sweden 75/449 OSCC S: PG1 < 28 lg/ld Yese P-B CCS 67/449 OAC 103/449 GCA Watabe et al. [21]; Japan 2/6940 GCA S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3 and PG1 £ 70 lg/l No P-B screening study, and follow-up for a mean period of 4.7 year Nomura et al. [22]; United States 29/334 GCA S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 2; PG1 £ 30 lg/l No P-B CCS Oishi et al. [23]; Japan 23/NAf GCAc S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3 and PG1 £ 70 mg/L; PG1:PG2 ratio £ 2 and PG1 £ 30 lg/l Yes P-B Cohort Knekt et al. [24]; Finland 32/63 GCA S: PG1 < 49 lg/l No Nested CCS (in a P-B cohort) Palli et al. [25]; Several European countries 54/200g GCA S: PG1 22 lg/l No Nested CCS (in a P-B cohort) Hansen et al. [26]; Norway 44/132 GCA S: PG1:PG2 ratio 2.5 No Nested CCS (in a cohort of blood donors) Anderson et al. [27]; Ireland 131/260 OAC S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3, and £7 Yese CCS; H-B cases, P-B controls 92/260 GCA Derakhshan et al. [28]; Iran 19/38 OAC S: PG1:PG2 ratio 2.5 No H-B CCS 53/53 GCA Iijima et al. [29]; Japan 90/89 OSCC S: PG1:PG2 ratio 2; PG1 25 lg/l Yes H-B CCS Yokoyama et al. [30]; Japan 90/180 OSCC S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3, and £ 2; PG1 £ 70, and £ 30 lg/l No P-B CCS among alcoholics Kamangar et al. [31]; China 125/250 Moderate to severe squamous dysplasia S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3, £ 4, £ 9, and £ 12; PG1 £ 30, £ 50, £ 100, and £ 130 lg/l No P-B screening study Ren et al. [32]; China 323/974 OSCC S: PG1:PG2 ratio £ 3, £4, £5, and £6; PG1 £ 50 lg/l Yes Nested CCS (in a cohort of participants in an intervention trial)546/974 GCA De Vries et al. [33]; the Netherlands 126/NAf OSCC Histology: gastric atrophy, intestinal metaplasia, and dysplasia No Nationwide gastric atrophy cohort Akiyama et al. [34]; Japan 253/253 OSCC Histology: gastric mucosal atrophy open-type 2 and 3 Yes H-B CCS a When several serological cut-offs were presented, the ones highlighted in bold font were used in the current meta-analysis. b Reporting relative risks controlled (by matching controls or doing adjustments in statistical models) at least for age for all cancers, as well as tobacco and alcohol use for OSCC and tobacco use and body mass index or total energy intake (as an indirect indicator of body mass index) for OAC and GCA. c Adenocarcinoma in proximal one-third of the stomach. d Participants with high PG1 level (158 lg/l) were categorised separately. They were not included in the current analyses. e Also adjusted for at least one socioeconomic status indicator, e.g. education level. f The number of cases was compared with standardised incidence rates. g A total of 910 controls (approximately four controls for each case) were enrolled for a total of 233 gastric cancer cases (including noncardia cancers). CCS, case–control study; GCA, gastric cardia adenocarcinoma; H-B, hospital based; OAC, oesophageal adenocarcinoma; OSCC, oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma; NA, not applicable; PG1, pepsinogen 1; PG2, pepsinogen 2; PG1:PG2 ratio, pepsinogen 1 to pepsinogen 2 ratio; P-B, population based; S, serological assessment. Annals of Oncology review doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq411 | 3 byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  4. 4. oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma Figure 1B and Table 2 show the results for the association between gastric atrophy and OSCC. Seven studies were included in this analysis. The overall RR (95% CI) was 1.94 (1.48–2.55). The I2 statistic was 49%, suggesting moderate heterogeneity, and the P value associated with the Q-statistic was 0.07, showing a marginally significant heterogeneity (Table 2). There was no evidence for publication bias using either Begg and Mazumdar’s method (P for rank correlation = 0.55) or Egger’s weighted regression method (P for bias = 0.84). Begg’s funnel plot for the association between gastric atrophy and OSCC is shown in supplemental Figure S1B (available at Annals of Oncology online). In analyses by geographic region, P values associated with the Q-statistic were 0.27 and 0.10 for studies from Asia and from Europe/the United States, respectively, suggesting no significant heterogeneity in each region (Table 2). The summary point estimate was lower for studies from Asia (RR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.21–2.23) than for studies from Europe/the United States (RR = 2.71; 95% CI: 1.43–5.11). However, there were only two studies from Europe/the United States. Summary RR (95% CI) was 1.91 (1.33–2.73) for studies with population-based controls, 1.95 (1.45–2.63) for large studies, and 2.10 (1.19–3.70) for studies with adjusted results. For these subgroup analyses, the heterogeneity was statistically significant or borderline (Table 2). For the studies that used PG1:PG2 ratio to detect gastric atrophy, the summary RR (95% CI) was 1.71 (1.08–2.69) and the P value associated with the Q-statistic did not suggest a significant heterogeneity (P = 0.16). oesophageal adenocarcinoma Only three publications reported on the association between gastric atrophy and OAC (Figure 1C and Table 2). The overall summary RR (95% CI) was 0.51 (0.19–1.37). The I2 statistic showed a moderate variation (55%) among study results, but the Q-statistic did not suggest significant heterogeneity (P = 0.11). Since very few studies were included in this subgroup, we do not report results of analyses for publication bias. In subgroup analyses, each subgroup consisted of only one or two studies. Of note, when we considered the two studies that used PG1:PG2 ratio as the marker of atrophy, we observed a statistically significant association between gastric atrophy and OAC with no heterogeneity; the summary RR (95% CI) was 0.29 (0.13–0.47) and the P value associated with the Q-statistic was 0.99 (Table 2). Results of other subgroup analyses were similar to the overall results, with high heterogeneity in subgroups with two studies (data not shown). discussion The results of this meta-analysis showed a nearly twofold increased risk of OSCC and threefold increased risk of GCA associated with gastric atrophy. We found only three studies for the association between OAC and atrophy but the results of these studies showed no increased risk and perhaps they even suggested a reduced risk. Gastric atrophy is a known risk factor for NCGA. In Pelayo Correa’s model, published over two decades ago, atrophy is in the pathway to intestinal type gastric carcinogenesis [39]. We found a considerable number of studies reporting on the association between gastric atrophy and GCA; nearly all studies showed increased risk. As gastric cardia is located between the NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis Overall Anderson Nomura Watabe Fukuda Ye Author Hattori Ren Oishi Knekt Parsonnet Palli Hansen Derakhshan 2.89 (2.09, 3.98) 2.21 (0.97, 5.03) 2.57 (1.01, 6.55) 0.73 (0.04, 15.18) 5.21 (2.49, 10.91) 4.50 (2.50, 7.80) RR (95% CI) 8.72 (0.35, 214.26) 1.58 (0.95, 2.63) 2.77 (1.32, 5.81) 1.85 (0.55, 6.16) 5.00 (0.60, 42.80) 11.00 (3.00, 40.90) 1.56 (0.60, 4.09) 3.05 (1.32, 7.06) 100.00 9.48 8.03 1.07 10.79 14.05 % Weight 0.97 15.40 10.75 5.52 2.08 4.87 7.75 9.25 1.5 2 5 10 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis Overall Author Akiyama Yokoyama Kamangar Ren Iijima Ye de Vries 1.94 (1.48, 2.55) RR (95% CI) 1.57 (1.03, 2.39) 1.53 (0.92, 2.56) 1.80 (0.58, 5.53) 1.10 (0.59, 2.04) 3.30 (1.60, 7.00) 4.30 (1.90, 9.60) 2.15 (1.81, 2.56) 100.00 Weight % 18.93 15.57 5.03 12.38 9.80 8.56 29.73 1.5 2 5 10 C. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis Overall Ye Author Anderson Derakhshan 100.00 42.82 % Weight 30.04 27.15 0.51 (0.19, 1.37) 1.10 (0.50, 2.50) RR (95% CI) 0.29 (0.08, 1.01) 0.29 (0.07, 1.16) 1.1 .5 2 A. Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma B. Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma Figure 1. Forest plots for the association of gastric atrophy with oesophageal and gastric cardia cancers. Studies are sorted in order of publication year. (A) Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. (B) Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. (C) Oesophageal adenocarcinoma. review Annals of Oncology 4 | Islami et al. byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  5. 5. oesophagus and stomach, misclassification of GCA as oesophageal and gastric noncardia adenocarcinoma, and vice versa, is possible. This can influence the observed association in our study. However, we do not expect a substantial influence because it is unlikely that all studies had high rates of such a misclassification. The direction and magnitude of increased risk is similar to what has been reported for NCGA [4]. Atrophy may increase the risk of GCA through the same mechanisms that it may increase the risk of NCGA. However, it has been suggested that there may be two types of GCA, one associated with H. pylori whose risk is increased with atrophy, and one that resembles OAC, on which gastric atrophy may have no or a protective effect [26]. Whereas this is an intriguing hypothesis, we were not able to examine it in the current meta- analysis because most studies did not provide information stratified jointly by H. pylori and atrophy. However, our results establish that overall atrophy substantially increases the risk of GCA. An association between atrophy of the gastric mucosa and OSCC, a cancer outside the stomach, was not expected or extensively studied until recently. The results of our study, while indicating heterogeneity in strength of association, show that nearly all seven published studies have found a point estimate of higher than one for the risk. Several hypotheses have been suggested to explain why such association may exist. Atrophy of the mucosa leads to reduced acid production in the stomach, proliferation of the bacteria, and perhaps increased production of acetaldehyde and N-nitroso compounds [40–42]; these latter two chemicals may act as risk factors for OSCC [43, 44]. We would like to note that it is unclear that the association between atrophy and OSCC is causal. One study that found an RR of 2.16 (95% CI: 1.81–2.56) for the association of gastric atrophy, intestinal metaplasia, and dysplasia with OSCC also found an increased risk of small cell carcinoma of the lung (RR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.65–2.09) [33]. The authors suggested that both associations may be attributable to another common factor, such as smoking. However, consistency of association across studies suggested by this meta- analysis; dose–response relationship shown by some studies [30, 31]; the presence of associations after adjusting for some potential confounders, including smoking; and proposed biological mechanisms discussed above argue for a causal relationship. Some studies [32, 33] did not find a dose– response relationship. For example, one study found that although atrophy increased the risk of OSCC, the severity of atrophy did not increase OSCC risk in a dose–response manner [33]. However, lack of a dose–response relationship does not exclude the possibility of a causal relationship as atrophy itself may be sufficient to increase OSCC risk and progression to metaplasia or dysplasia may not be consequential. There were too few studies to establish or refute an association between gastric atrophy and OAC. However, the results of these studies point to a reduced risk of OAC in patients with atrophy. If such an inverse association is established, it may be due to reduced acid production and reduced acid reflux from the stomach to the oesophagus, and it may explain why carrying H. pylori is inversely associated with risk of OAC [37]. The association between gastric atrophy and OAC can be further studied in large prospective cancer studies [45] and in a number of epidemiological studies that have been established in the past two decades to study the risk factors of OAC [46–50]. Table 2. Summary statistics for the association between gastric atrophy and oesophageal and gastric cardia cancers Number of studies I2 (%)a P valueb Random-effects, RR (95% CI) Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma Overall analysis 13 34 0.11 2.89 (2.09–3.98) Studies from Asia 6 41 0.13 2.72 (1.67–4.44) Studies from Europe and the United States 7 33 0.18 3.07 (1.95–4.83) Population-based studies 11 34 0.13 2.65 (1.84–3.81) Large studies (standard error 0.5) 8 42 0.10 2.73 (1.94–3.83) Adjusted results 4 59 0.06 2.56 (1.54–4.25) Studies using PG1:PG2 ratio 9 14 0.32 2.43 (1.78–3.32) Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma Overall analysis 7 49 0.07 1.94 (1.48–2.55) Studies from Asia 5 22 0.27 1.64 (1.21–2.23) Studies from Europe and the United States 2 63 0.10 2.71 (1.43–5.11) Population-based studies 5 54 0.07 1.91 (1.33–2.73) Large studies (standard error 0.5) 6 57 0.04 1.95 (1.45–2.63) Adjusted results 4 69 0.02 2.10 (1.19–3.70) Studies using PG1:PG2 ratio 4 42 0.16 1.71 (1.08–2.69) Oesophageal adenocarcinoma Overall analysis 3 55 0.11 0.51 (0.19–1.37) Studies using PG1:PG2 ratio 2 0 0.99 0.29 (0.13–0.47) a Higgins I2 statistic for heterogeneity b P value for chi-square test for heterogeneity (Q-statistics). CI, confidence interval; PG1:PG2 ratio, pepsinogen 1 to pepsinogen 2 ratio; RR, relative risk. Annals of Oncology review doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq411 | 5 byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  6. 6. To test the robustness of the results, we conducted several subgroup analyses. The increased risk of OSCC and GCA with atrophy was observed regardless of the geographic site of the study, design of the study (population based or hospital based), size of the study, adjustments, and method of ascertainment of atrophy. Therefore, the results seemed robust. For OSCC, the association was somewhat stronger in studies from Europe and the United States than those conducted in Asia, but this difference was mainly related to one study [32]. This meta-analysis has several strengths, including an extensive search, careful examination of the studies by at least two of the authors, the large number of studies included for OSCC and GCA, and subgroups analyses that showed robustness of the results. One limitation of the meta-analysis was the relatively small number of studies for OAC. It is also subject to limitations that may be associated with any meta- analysis, including combining heterogeneous populations and results [51]; however, as mentioned earlier, there was low to moderate heterogeneity among studies and subgroup analyses yielded results similar to the overall analysis. Histological examination of gastric biopsy specimen and using serum PG1:PG2 ratio are not perfect methods for diagnosis of gastric atrophy. The first method is subject to observer variation and sampling error [35]. There is no unanimous agreement on the best cut-off points for the second method; furthermore, this method may not allow for appropriate location of gastric atrophy without other additional tests, such as examination of gastrin-17 levels in serum [52, 53]. However, among the available tools to diagnose gastric atrophy in epidemiological studies, these two methods are the best tests and have comparable efficacy [35]. Although the large majority of the studies used PG1 or PG1:PG2 ratio as indicators of atrophy, they used different definitions for atrophy. While heterogeneity in definition may be a weakness, it may also be a strength, because it could reveal the influence of cut-off points on the associations. Within the range of cut-off points used, the large majority of the studies showed increased risk of OSCC and GCA regardless of the exact cut-off point. In summary, we found two- to threefold increased risk of OSCC and GCA but a possible reduced risk of OAC in people with gastric atrophy. Further studies are needed to establish the association with OAC and casual association with OSCC, and mechanisms of the increased risk need to be investigated for GCA. funding Work by F. I. was supported by a PhD fellowship from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. acknowledgement We thank Dr M. H. Derakhshan for providing us with more detailed information on the results of their study. disclosure The authors declare no conflict of interest. references 1. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 2137–2150. 2. Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, Fraumeni JF. Esophageal Cancer. In Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF (eds), Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; 697–706. 3. Forman D, Burley VJ. Gastric cancer: global pattern of the disease and an overview of environmental risk factors. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 633–649. 4. Helicobacter and Cancer Collaborative Group. Gastric cancer and Helicobacter pylori: a combined analysis of 12 case control studies nested within prospective cohorts. Gut 2001; 49: 347–353. 5. Nomura AM, Stemmermann GN, Samloff IM. Serum pepsinogen I as a predictor of stomach cancer. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93: 537–540. 6. Stemmermann GN, Samloff IM, Nomura AM, Heilbrun LK. Serum pepsinogens I and II and stomach cancer. Clin Chim Acta 1987; 163: 191–198. 7. Parsonnet J, Samloff IM, Nelson LM et al. Helicobacter pylori, pepsinogen, and risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1993; 2: 461–466. 8. Brown LM, Devesa SS. Epidemiologic trends in esophageal and gastric cancer in the United States. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2002; 11: 235–256. 9. Steevens J, Botterweck AA, Dirx MJ et al. Trends in incidence of oesophageal and stomach cancer subtypes in Europe. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 669–678. 10. Hsing AW, Hansson LE, McLaughlin JK et al. Pernicious anemia and subsequent cancer. A population-based cohort study. Cancer 1993; 71: 745–750. 11. Rakic S, Dunjic MS, Pesko P, Milicevic M. Atrophic chronic gastritis in patients with epidermoid carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 1993; 17: 84. 12. Ye W, Held M, Lagergren J et al. Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric atrophy: risk of adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell carcinoma of the esophagus and adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 388–396. 13. Corley DA, Buffler PA. Oesophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinomas: analysis of regional variation using the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents database. Int J Epidemiol 2001; 30: 1415–1425. 14. Rugge M, Correa P, Di Mario F et al. OLGA staging for gastritis: a tutorial. Dig Liver Dis 2008; 40: 650–658. 15. Samloff IM, Taggart RT. Pepsinogens, pepsins, and peptic ulcer. Clin Invest Med 1987; 10: 215–221. 16. Shikata K, Kiyohara Y, Kubo M et al. A prospective study of dietary salt intake and gastric cancer incidence in a defined Japanese population: the Hisayama study. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 196–201. 17. Iijima K, Koike T, Abe Y et al. Extensive gastric atrophy: an increased risk factor for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1603–1609. 18. de Vries AC, van Grieken NC, Looman CW et al. Gastric cancer risk in patients with premalignant gastric lesions: a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 945–952. 19. Hattori Y, Tashiro H, Kawamoto T, Kodama Y. Sensitivity and specificity of mass screening for gastric cancer using the measurement of serum pepsinogens. Jpn J Cancer Res 1995; 86: 1210–1215. 20. Fukuda H, Saito D, Hayashi S et al. Helicobacter pylori infection, serum pepsinogen level and gastric cancer: a case-control study in Japan. Jpn J Cancer Res 1995; 86: 64–71. 21. Watabe H, Mitsushima T, Yamaji Y et al. Predicting the development of gastric cancer from combining Helicobacter pylori antibodies and serum pepsinogen status: a prospective endoscopic cohort study. Gut 2005; 54: 764–768. 22. Nomura AM, Kolonel LN, Miki K et al. Helicobacter pylori, pepsinogen, and gastric adenocarcinoma in Hawaii. J Infect Dis 2005; 191: 2075–2081. 23. Oishi Y, Kiyohara Y, Kubo M et al. The serum pepsinogen test as a predictor of gastric cancer: the Hisayama study. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 629–637. review Annals of Oncology 6 | Islami et al. byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom
  7. 7. 24. Knekt P, Teppo L, Aromaa A et al. Helicobacter pylori IgA and IgG antibodies, serum pepsinogen I and the risk of gastric cancer: changes in the risk with extended follow-up period. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 702–705. 25. Palli D, Masala G, Del Giudice G et al. CagA+ Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric cancer risk in the EPIC-EURGAST study. Int J Cancer 2006; 120: 859–867. 26. Hansen S, Vollset SE, Derakhshan MH et al. Two distinct aetiologies of cardia cancer; evidence from premorbid serological markers of gastric atrophy and Helicobacter pylori status. Gut 2007; 56: 918–925. 27. Anderson LA, Murphy SJ, Johnston BT et al. Relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric atrophy and the stages of the oesophageal inflammation, metaplasia, adenocarcinoma sequence: results from the FINBAR case-control study. Gut 2008; 57: 734–739. 28. Derakhshan MH, Malekzadeh R, Watabe H et al. Combination of gastric atrophy, reflux symptoms and histological subtype indicates two distinct aetiologies of gastric cardia cancer. Gut 2008; 57: 298–305. 29. Iijima K, Koike T, Abe Y et al. Gastric hyposecretion in esophageal squamous-cell carcinomas. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 55: 1349–1355. 30. Yokoyama A, Omori T, Yokoyama T et al. Chronic atrophic gastritis and metachronous gastric cancer in Japanese alcoholic men with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2009; 33: 898–905. 31. Kamangar F, Diaw L, Wei WQ et al. Serum pepsinogens and risk of esophageal squamous dysplasia. Int J Cancer 2009; 124: 456–460. 32. Ren JS, Kamangar F, Qiao YL et al. Serum pepsinogens and risk of gastric and oesophageal cancers in the general population nutrition intervention trial cohort. Gut 2009; 58: 636–642. 33. de Vries AC, Capelle LG, Looman CW et al. Increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in patients with gastric atrophy: independent of the severity of atrophic changes. Int J Cancer 2009; 124: 2135–2138. 34. Akiyama T, Inamori M, Iida H et al. Macroscopic extent of gastric mucosal atrophy: increased risk factor for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Japan. BMC Gastroenterol 2009; 9: 34. 35. Weck MN, Brenner H. Association of Helicobacter pylori infection with chronic atrophic gastritis: meta-analyses according to type of disease definition. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 874–881. 36. Dawsey SM, Mark SD, Taylor PR, Limburg PJ. Gastric cancer and H. pylori. Gut 2002; 51: 457–458. 37. Islami F, Kamangar F. Helicobacter pylori and esophageal cancer risk: a meta- analysis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2008; 1: 329–338. 38. Islami F, Ren JS, Taylor PR, Kamangar F. Pickled vegetables and the risk of oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2009; 101: 1641–1647. 39. Correa P. A human model of gastric carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 3554–3560. 40. McColl KE, Watabe H, Derakhshan MH. Sporadic gastric cancer; a complex interaction of genetic and environmental risk factors. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1893–1895. 41. Vakevainen S, Mentula S, Nuutinen H et al. Ethanol-derived microbial production of carcinogenic acetaldehyde in achlorhydric atrophic gastritis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 648–655. 42. Kodama K, Sumii K, Kawano M et al. Gastric juice nitrite and vitamin C in patients with gastric cancer and atrophic gastritis: is low acidity solely responsible for cancer risk? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003; 15: 987–993. 43. Secretan B, Straif K, Baan R et al. A review of human carcinogens—Part E: tobacco, areca nut, alcohol, coal smoke, and salted fish. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1033–1034. 44. Kamangar F, Chow WH, Abnet CC, Dawsey SM. Environmental causes of esophageal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2009; 38: 27–57, vii. 45. Carneiro F, Moutinho C, Pera G et al. Pathology findings and validation of gastric and esophageal cancer cases in a European cohort (EPIC/EUR-GAST). Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 618–627. 46. Shaheen NJ, Green B, Medapalli RK et al. The perception of cancer risk in patients with prevalent Barrett’s esophagus enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 429–436. 47. Whiteman DC, Sadeghi S, Pandeya N et al. Combined effects of obesity, acid reflux and smoking on the risk of adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus. Gut 2008; 57: 173–180. 48. Corley DA, Kubo A, DeBoer J, Rumore GJ. Diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: reliability of clinical and pathologic diagnoses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1004–1010. 49. Pandeya N, Williams G, Green AC et al. Alcohol consumption and the risks of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1215–1222. 50. Hoyo C, Schildkraut JM, Murphy SK et al. IGF2R polymorphisms and risk of esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas. Int J Cancer 2009; 125: 2673–2678. 51. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 771–778. 52. Storskrubb T, Aro P, Ronkainen J et al. Serum biomarkers provide an accurate method for diagnosis of atrophic gastritis in a general population: the Kalixanda study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 1448–1455. 53. Iijima K, Abe Y, Kikuchi R et al. Serum biomarker tests are useful in delineating between patients with gastric atrophy and normal, healthy stomach. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 853–859. Annals of Oncology review doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq411 | 7 byguestonOctober15,2010annonc.oxfordjournals.orgDownloadedfrom

×