4.3 Article

Fundic gland polyps accurately predict a low risk of future gastric carcinogenesis

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2014.01.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591552] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Few reports have analyzed the clinical importance of sporadic fundic gland polyps (FGPs). The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between sporadic FGPs and condition of the gastric mucosa stratified by serum pepsinogen levels and Helicobacter pylori antibody level. Methods: Three hundred and seventy-five subjects undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled. Subjects on proton pump inhibitors were excluded. Pathologically proven FGPs, and other endoscopic findings (reflux esophagitis, gastric and duodenal ulcer) were examined and serum pepsinogen levels, H. pylori antibody concentration and gastric juice pH were measured simultaneously. Subjects with normal serum pepsinogen and negative H. pylori antibodies were defined as having low risk'' stomachs, suggesting low risk of gastric carcinogenesis. Results: Of the 375 subjects, 44 showed FGPs. The prevalence of low risk'' stomach in subjects with and without FGPs was 98% and 48%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated three variables as independent factors positively associated with low risk'' stomachs: FGPs (odds ratio [OR] 38.6), reflux esophagitis (OR 4.8), and age < 60 years (OR 1.89). Gastric juice pH, which is associated with mucosal atrophy grade and low pH indicates less mucosal atrophy, was significantly lower in subjects with (1.64 +/- 0.64) than without FGPs in low risk'' (1.94 +/- 1.12) and high risk'' stomachs (3.99 +/- 2.31). Conclusions: Sporadic FGPs tend to be related to the least atrophic mucosa among non-gastricatrophy subjects without H. pylori infection, and can be used as predictors of a low risk of gastric carcinogenesis. (C) 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据