3.8 Article

The importance of complete blood count parameters in the screening of gastric cancer

Journal

Publisher

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2019.88167

Keywords

gastric cancer; intestinal metaplasia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Gastric cancer is ranked fourth among all cancers in the world and second in cancer-related deaths. Gastritis leads to the activation of neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and platelets. Long-term inflammation leads to multistage histopathologic changes called Correa tract, which includes gastritis, atrophy, intestinal metaplasia (IM), dysplasia, and cancer stages. Aim: To determine if there is any difference in haematological parameters between gastric cancer (GC) patients, patients with IM, and healthy controls (HC). Material and methods: Seventy-three GC patients, 79 patients with IM, and 70 HCs were included in the study. Demographics and laboratory parameters of complete blood count were extracted from the hospital medical database records. Results: The mean Hb levels were statistically significant between all three groups. Mean red cell distribution width (RDW), white blood cells (WBC), mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW), neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and monocyte-to-lymphocyte (MLR) levels were statistically significantly different between gastric cancer and healthy controls. Mean RDW, MPV, and PDW levels were statistically significantly different between the IM and healthy control groups. Mean WBC, NLR, PLR, and MLR levels were statistically significantly different between the gastric cancer and IM groups. Conclusions: RDW, platelet count, NLR, MLR, and PLR have diagnostic value and can help to distinguish patients with GC from those with IM. These parameters are accessible easily, the cost is not high, and it may help patients not to delay endoscopic screening.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available