4.5 Review

Review of gastric cancer risk factors in patients with common variable immunodeficiency disorders, resulting in a proposal for a surveillance programme

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 165, Issue 1, Pages 1-7

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2011.04384.x

Keywords

common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVIDs); gastric cancer; H; pylori; pernicious anaemia; surveillance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVIDs) are the most frequent symptomatic primary immunodeficiencies in adults. They comprise a heterogeneous group of pathologies, with frequent non-infectious complications in addition to the bacterial infections that usually characterize their presentation. Complications include a high risk of malignancy, especially lymphoma and gastric cancer. Helicobacter pylori infection and pernicious anaemia are risk predictors for gastric cancer in the general population and probably in patients with CVIDs. Screening for gastric cancer in a high-risk population appears to improve survival. Given the increased risk of gastric cancer in patients with CVIDs and prompted by a case of advanced gastric malignancy in a patient with a CVID and concomitant pernicious anaemia, we performed a review of the literature for gastric cancer and conducted a cohort study of gastric pathology in 116 patients with CVIDs under long-term follow-up in Oxford. Regardless of the presence of pernicious anaemia or H. pylori infection, patients with CVIDs have a 10-fold increased risk of gastric cancer and are therefore a high-risk population. Although endoscopic screening of all patients with CVIDs could be considered, a more selective approach is appropriate and we propose a surveillance protocol that should reduce modifiable risk factors such as H. pylori, in order to improve the management of patients with CVIDs at risk of gastric malignancy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available