4.7 Article

Gastric atrophy and xanthelasma are markers for predicting the development of early gastric cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 35-42

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-015-1081-0

关键词

Gastric xanthelasma; Early gastric cancer; Gastric atrophy; Diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The significance of gastric xanthelasma in relation to gastric cancer still remains unclear. We investigated whether gastric xanthelasma would be a useful marker for predicting the development of early gastric cancer. A total of 1823 patients who underwent a medical health checkup were enrolled. We examined the relationship between gastric xanthelasma and various clinical features, and in an endoscopic follow-up study investigated whether the presence of gastric xanthelasma was predictive of the development of early gastric cancer. In the initial endoscopic examination, gastric xanthelasma was detected in 107 (5.9 %) of the 1823 patients. The presence of gastric xanthelasma was significantly associated with age a parts per thousand yen65 years, male gender, open-type atrophy, and the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001, respectively). During the endoscopic follow-up period, early gastric cancer was found in 29 (1.6 %) of the 1823 patients. Gastric cancer occurred in 15 (14.0 %) of 107 patients with gastric xanthelasma, whereas it occurred in 14 (0.8 %) of 1716 patients without (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that open-type atrophy and gastric xanthelasma were independently related to the development of gastric cancer (odds ratio 7.19 [2.50-20.83]; p = 0.0003 and 5.85 [2.67-12.82]; p < 0.0001, respectively). The presence of gastric xanthelasma was significantly predictive of gastric cancer development even in the selected high-risk groups with open-type atrophy or DM (p < 0.0001 or p < 0.0001, respectively). Gastric xanthelasma is a useful marker for predicting the development of gastric 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

4.7
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