4.1 Article

Helicobacter pylori infection and markers of gastric cancer risk in Alaska Native persons: A retrospective case-control study

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/892084

关键词

Alaska Native; cagA; Gastric cancer; Helicobacter pylori; Pepsinogen I

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Alaska Native persons experience gastric cancer incidence and mortality rates that are three to four times higher than in the general United States population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pepsinogen I, pepsinogen I/II ratio, anti-Helicobacter pylori and cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) antibody levels, and blood group for their associations with gastric cancer development in Alaska Native people. METHODS: The present analysis was a retrospective case-control study that matched gastric cancers reported to the Alaska Native Tumor Registry from 1969 to 2008 to three controls on known demographic risk factors for H pylori infection, using sera from the Alaska Area Specimen Bank. Conditional logistic regression evaluated associations between serum markers and gastric cancer. RESULTS: A total of 122 gastric cancer cases were included, with sera predating cancer diagnosis (mean = 13 years) and 346 matched controls. One hundred twelve cases (91.8%) and 285 controls (82.4%) had evidence of previous or ongoing H pylori infection as measured by anti-H pylori antibody levels. Gastric cancer cases had a 2.63-fold increased odds of having positive anti-H pylori antibodies compared with their matched controls (P=0.01). In a multivariate model, non-cardia gastric cancer (n=94) was associated with anti-H pylori antibodies (adjusted OR 3.92; P=0.004) and low pepsinogen I level (adjusted OR 6.04; P=0.04). No association between gastric cancer and blood group, anti-CagA antibodies or pepsinogen I/II ratio was found. CONCLUSION: Alaska Native people with gastric cancer had increased odds of previous H pylori infection. Low pepsinogen I level may function as a precancer marker for noncardia cancer.

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

4.1
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