4.7 Article

Occurrence and risk factors for benign epithelial gastric polyps in atrophic body gastritis on diagnosis and follow-up

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 567-574

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02399.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Benign epithelial gastric polyps have been reported to be more common in atrophic body gastritis. The role of Helicobacter pylori infection in the induction of gastric atrophy is well-known. The development of hyperplastic polyps may be in relation to H. pylori infection. Aim: To investigate occurrence of benign epithelial gastric polyps in atrophic body gastritis patients at diagnosis and follow-up, and the role of H. pylori and other risk factors for the development of benign epithelial gastric polyps. Methods: A total of 259 consecutive atrophic body gastritis patients included in a follow-up programme, of whom 202 were followed up for median period of 4 years (range: 2-11). At baseline and follow-up gastroscopies, the presence of benign epithelial gastric polyps was evaluated. Biopsies for histology were obtained from all detected benign epithelial gastric polyps. Results: Frequency of benign epithelial gastric polyps in atrophic body gastritis patients were 4.6% at baseline and 5.9% at follow-up. About 91.7% were hyperplastic polyps. H. pylori infection was detected in 79.2% atrophic body gastritis patients with benign epithelial gastric polyps, and in 70.8% without benign epithelial gastric polyps. Smoking was more frequent among patients with benign epithelial gastric polyps [42% vs. 20%, OR 2.8 (95% CI: 1.2-6.9)]. Conclusions: Benign epithelial gastric polyps occur in about 5% of atrophic body gastritis patients, and the vast majority are hyperplastic polyps. Smoking habit, but not H. pylori infection, increases the risk for benign epithelial gastric polyps in atrophic body gastritis patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available