TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of Different Gastric Cancer Screening Methods in Korea
T2 - A Population-Based Study
AU - Choi, Kui Son
AU - Jun, Jae Kwan
AU - Park, Eun Cheol
AU - Park, Sohee
AU - Jung, Kyu Won
AU - Han, Mi Ah
AU - Choi, Il Ju
AU - Lee, Hoo Yeon
PY - 2012/11/29
Y1 - 2012/11/29
N2 - Background: There is a lack of agreement on which gastric cancer screening method is the most effective in the general population. The present study compared the relative performance of upper-gastrointestinal series (UGIS) and endoscopy screening for gastric cancer. Methods: A population-based study was conducted using the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) database. We analyzed data on 2,690,731 men and women in Korea who underwent either UGIS or endoscopy screening for gastric cancer between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2005. Final gastric cancer diagnosis was ascertained through linkage with the Korean Central Cancer Registry. We calculated positivity rate, gastric cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of UGIS and endoscopy screening. Results: The positivity rates for UGIS and endoscopy screening were 39.7 and 42.1 per 1,000 screenings, respectively. Gastric cancer detection rates were 0.68 and 2.61 per 1,000 screenings, respectively. In total, 2,067 interval cancers occurred within 1 year of a negative UGIS screening result (rate, 1.17/1,000) and 1,083 after a negative endoscopy screening result (rate, 1.17/1,000). The sensitivity of UGIS and endoscopy screening to detect gastric cancer was 36.7 and 69.0%, respectively, and specificity was 96.1 and 96.0%. The sensitivity of endoscopy screening to detect localized gastric cancer was 65.7%, which was statistically significantly higher than that of UGIS screening. Conclusion: Overall, endoscopy performed better than UGIS in the NCSP for gastric cancer. Further evaluation of the impact of these screening methods should take into account the corresponding costs and reduction in mortality.
AB - Background: There is a lack of agreement on which gastric cancer screening method is the most effective in the general population. The present study compared the relative performance of upper-gastrointestinal series (UGIS) and endoscopy screening for gastric cancer. Methods: A population-based study was conducted using the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) database. We analyzed data on 2,690,731 men and women in Korea who underwent either UGIS or endoscopy screening for gastric cancer between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2005. Final gastric cancer diagnosis was ascertained through linkage with the Korean Central Cancer Registry. We calculated positivity rate, gastric cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of UGIS and endoscopy screening. Results: The positivity rates for UGIS and endoscopy screening were 39.7 and 42.1 per 1,000 screenings, respectively. Gastric cancer detection rates were 0.68 and 2.61 per 1,000 screenings, respectively. In total, 2,067 interval cancers occurred within 1 year of a negative UGIS screening result (rate, 1.17/1,000) and 1,083 after a negative endoscopy screening result (rate, 1.17/1,000). The sensitivity of UGIS and endoscopy screening to detect gastric cancer was 36.7 and 69.0%, respectively, and specificity was 96.1 and 96.0%. The sensitivity of endoscopy screening to detect localized gastric cancer was 65.7%, which was statistically significantly higher than that of UGIS screening. Conclusion: Overall, endoscopy performed better than UGIS in the NCSP for gastric cancer. Further evaluation of the impact of these screening methods should take into account the corresponding costs and reduction in mortality.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870550023&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870550023&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0050041
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0050041
M3 - Article
C2 - 23209638
AN - SCOPUS:84870550023
VL - 7
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 11
M1 - e50041
ER -
