Stomach Cancer Risk in Gastric Cancer Relatives

Shin, Cheol Min; Kim, Nayoung; Yang, Hee-Beom; Cho, Sung-Il; Lee, Hye Seung; Kim, Sang Woo; Jung, Hyun Chae; Song, In Sung

doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e3181a159c4

Cited by 120 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 summarizes all studies included in this analysis. These studies addressed H. pylori infection status [22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], two encompassing data on the status of infection and H. pylori genotype [24,25]. Eight studies evaluated the occurrence of premalignant lesions [22, 25-27, 29, 30].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of them was based in a sub-study of a National Survey with serum samples for the detection of antibodies to H. pylori with no endoscopic procedures [24]. The controls included by Shin et al [31] underwent a standard gastroscopy as a part of a screening program for premalignant gastric mucosal lesions or gastric cancer.…”

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Globally, three ethnicities were included: four studies addressed Caucasian populations [22,24,27,29], four focused on Asiatic populations [25,26,28,31] and one within a South American population [30].…”

Section: Addressed Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies were considered as case-controls, including the two nested case-control studies [24,31] with matching for age and gender. One study has a cohort arm evaluating several variables along 1 year of follow up [22].…”

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other four studies enrolled volunteers from the general population as controls [24][25][26]31]. One of them was based in a sub-study of a National Survey with serum samples for the detection of antibodies to H. pylori with no endoscopic procedures [24].…”

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

First degree relatives and familial aggregation of gastric cancer: who to choose for control in case–control studies?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastric carcinogenesis is a multifactorial process involving host gene and environmental interactions. Diverse case-control studies using different types of controls addressed the familial aggregation role for gastric cancer development. Our aim is to discuss the advantages and expected bias according to the different type of eligible controls. A PubMed search of papers on a query on first degree relatives of gastric cancer patients was conducted. The retrieved studies were evaluated regarding quality based on STROBE checklist. Data concerning risk of premalignant lesions and Helicobacter pylori infection was retrieved as the type of controls used on each study. Nine case-control studies were selected. A variety of controls were used ranging from general population to dyspeptic patients and spouses of the cases. We have observed that, independently of the type of control, the risk for the prevalence of premalignant lesions and H. pylori infection was higher for the cases. However, all of the evaluated case-control studies were average quality studies (mean 28 out of 45), with a small number of cases and controls (range from 39 to 300). Furthermore, concerning gene-environment interaction, each of the discussed type of control (general population, dyspeptic, spouse and neighbor) has potential advantages and disadvantages. The current data suggests that selection of any type of the aforementioned controls is feasible and seems to be mainly related to the feasibility of recruitment more than the genetic or environmental backgrounds. General population and dyspeptic patients would be equally appropriate for studies on familial aggregation of gastric cancer. Nevertheless, high-quality cohort studies are needed to validate this assumption.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Addressed Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Design and Selected Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

First degree relatives and familial aggregation of gastric cancer: who to choose for control in case–control studies?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Screening, Surveillance, and Prevention of Esophageal and Gastric Cancers

Muhammad Nawawi,

El‐Omar,

Ali

2024

Gastrointestinal Oncology ‐ a Critical Multidisciplinary Team Approach 2e

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validity of self‐reported family history of cancer: A systematic literature review on selected cancers

Fiederling

Shams

Haug

2016

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence regarding validity of self-reported family history of cancer (FHC) has been reviewed only for breast, colorectal, prostate, ovarian, endometrial and uterine cancer. We aimed to systematically review studies assessing validity of self-reported family history for the remaining cancer sites. We searched the Medline database for relevant studies published by January 2016. We extracted information on the study design and the positive predictive value (PPV) of self-reported FHC, defined as the proportion of reported cancer diagnoses among relatives that was confirmed by a reference standard (as a measure of over-reporting). We also extracted information on sensitivity of self-reported FHC (as a measure of underreporting). Overall, 21 studies were included that provided information on the PPV of self-reported FHC for relevant cancers and four studies also provided information on sensitivity. The PPV was highest (mostly >70%) for pancreatic, lung, thyroid and urinary system cancers and for leukemia and lymphoma, while it was lowest for stomach and liver cancer. Sensitivity was highest (>70%) for pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, melanoma, leukemia and lymphoma. For several cancers, sample sizes were low and the number of studies limited, particularly regarding sensitivity of self-reported FHC. In conclusion, for some cancers (e.g., pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma) self-reported FHC can be considered sufficiently valid to be useful, for example, in preventive counseling. For several cancers, it is not sufficiently studied or the pattern is inconsistent. This needs to be taken into account when using self-reported information about FHC in clinical practice or epidemiological research.

show abstract

Stomach Cancer Risk in Gastric Cancer Relatives

Cited by 120 publications

References 27 publications

First degree relatives and familial aggregation of gastric cancer: who to choose for control in case–control studies?

First degree relatives and familial aggregation of gastric cancer: who to choose for control in case–control studies?

Screening, Surveillance, and Prevention of Esophageal and Gastric Cancers

Validity of self‐reported family history of cancer: A systematic literature review on selected cancers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About