4.6 Article

Presence of blood in gastric juice: A sensitive marker for gastric cancer screening in a poor resource setting

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205185

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health [D43 TW009744]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Gastric cancer survival rates in Africa are low as many cases are diagnosed late. Currently, there are no inexpensive, non-invasive and simple techniques that can be employed in poor resource settings for early case detection. In this study, we explored the possibility using blood in gastric juice as a screening tool to identify patients requiring referral for endoscopy. Methods The study was conducted at the University Teaching Hospital endoscopy unit in Lusaka, Zambia. During esophagogastroduodenoscopy, gastric juice was aspirated and the pH determined using pH paper test strips. The presence of blood was tested using urinalysis reagent strips. Results We enrolled 276 patients; 147(53%) were female and median age was 49 years (IQR 40-64 years). The presence of blood was associated with mucosal lesions, [OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.2-3.7, P = 0.004]. It was also associated with gastric cancer, [OR 6.7; 95% CI 2-35, P = 0.0005], even at 1:10 and 1:100 dilutions, [OR 5.4; 95% CI 2.3-13.8, P<0.0001] and [OR 9.1; 95% CI 3.5-23, P< 0.0001] respectively. The sensitivity for gastric cancer detection using blood in gastric juice was 91% and the specificity was 41%. Analysis using the intensity of blood in gastric juice yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.86 with a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 77%. Conclusions The presence of blood in gastric juice is associated with gastric mucosal lesions. It has a high sensitivity but low specificity for gastric cancer detection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available