BackgroundHuman pepsinogens are considered promising serological biomarkers for the screening of atrophic gastritis (AG) and gastric cancer (GC). However, there has been controversy in the literature with respect to the validity of serum pepsinogen (SPG) for the detection of GC and AG. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SPG in GC and AG detection.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for correlative original studies published up to September 30, 2014. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR+), negative diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR-), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were used to evaluate SPG in GC and AG screening based on bivariate random effects models. The inter-study heterogeneity was evaluated by the I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed using Begg and Mazumdar’s test. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity.ResultsIn total, 31 studies involving 1,520 GC patients and 2,265 AG patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR for GC screening using SPG were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60–0.76), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62–0.82), 2.57 (95% CI: 1.82–3.62), and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34–0.54), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.80) and 6.01 (95% CI: 3.69–9.79), respectively. For AG screening, the summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55–0.80), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77–0.94), 5.80 (95% CI: 3.06–10.99), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.24–0.51), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82–0.88) and 16.50 (95% CI: 8.18–33.28), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG for GC screening yielded sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66–0.75), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79–0.80), DOR of 6.92 (95% CI: 4.36–11.00), and AUC of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72–0.81), while the use of concentration of PGI yielded sensitivity of 0.55 (95% CI: 0.51–0.60), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.82), DOR of 6.88 (95% CI: 2.30–20.60), and AUC of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73–0.92). For AG screening, the use of ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG yielded sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.52–0.83), specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.68–0.93), DOR of 11.51 (95% CI: 6.14–21.56), and AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80–0.86), the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII yield sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72–0.85), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85–0.93), DOR of 24.64 (95% CI: 6.95–87.37), and AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81–0.92), concurrently, the use of concentration of PGI yield sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.38–0.54), specificity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95), DOR of 19.86 (95% CI: 0.86–456.91), and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52–1.00).ConclusionSPG has great potential as a noninvasive, population-based screening tool in GC and AG screening. In addition, given the potential p...
Candidiasis is often observed in immunocompromised patients and is the 4th most common cause of bloodstream infections. However, antifungals are limited, so novel antifungal agents are urgently needed. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are considered as potential alternatives of conventional antibiotics. In the present study, antimicrobial peptide protonectin was chemically synthesized and its antifungal activity and mode of action were studied. Our results showed that protonectin has potent antifungal activity and fungicidal activity against the tested fungi cells. Its action mode involved the disruption of the membrane integrity and the inducing of the production of cellular ROS. Furthermore, protonectin could inhibit the formation of biofilm and kill the adherent fungi cells. In conclusion, with the increase of fungal infection, protonectin may offer a new strategy and be considered as a potential therapeutic agent against fungal disease.
AIM:To characterize patterns of gastric cancer recurrence and patient survival and to identify predictors of early recurrence after surgery. METHODS:Clinicopathological data for 417 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Tumor and node status was reclassified according to the 7 th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis classification for carcinoma of the stomach. Survival data came from both the patients' follow-up records and telephone followups. Recurrent gastric cancer was diagnosed based on clinical imaging, gastroscopy with biopsy, and/or cytological examination of ascites, or intraoperative findings in patients who underwent reoperation. Predictors of early recurrence were compared in patients with pT1 and pT2-4a stage tumors. Pearson's χ 2 test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare differences between categorical variables. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via the log-rank test. Variables identified as potentially important for early recurrence using univariate analysis were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Core tip: Few studies have assessed recurrence patterns or predictors of early recurrence after curative surgery in Chinese patients with gastric carcinoma. This study found that survival after gastric cancer recurrence was poor. Large tumor size and advanced pN stage were associated with early recurrence of tumor pT1 stage tumors. Age, pT stage, pN stage, Lauren histotype, lymphovascular invasion, intraoperative chemotherapy, and postoperative chemotherapy were independent predictors of early recurrence of pT2-4a stage tumors. RESULTS:Kang WM, Meng QB, Yu JC, Ma ZQ, Li ZT. Factors associated with early recurrence after curative surgery for gastric cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.