4.6 Article

Current issues and future perspectives of gastric cancer screening

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 38, Pages 13767-13774

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13767

Keywords

Gastric cancer screening; Mortality; Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Upper gastrointestinal X-ray; Serum pepsinogen test; Helicobacter pylori antibody

Funding

  1. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gastric cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. About half of the incidence of gastric cancer is observed in East Asian countries, which show a higher mortality than other countries. The effectiveness of 3 new gastric cancer screening techniques, namely, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, serological testing, and screen and treat method were extensively reviewed. Moreover, the phases of development for cancer screening were analyzed on the basis of the biomarker development road map. Several observational studies have reported the effectiveness of endoscopic screening in reducing mortality from gastric cancer. On the other hand, serologic testing has mainly been used for targeting the high-risk group for gastric cancer. To date, the effectiveness of new techniques for gastric cancer screening has remained limited. However, endoscopic screening is presently in the last trial phase of development before their introduction to population-based screening. To effectively introduce new techniques for gastric cancer screening in a community, incidence and mortality reduction from gastric cancer must be initially and thoroughly evaluated by conducting reliable studies. In addition to effectiveness evaluation, the balance of benefits and harms must be carefully assessed before introducing these new techniques for population-based screening. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

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