Which Individuals with Positive Family History of Gastric Can-cer Urgently Need Intensive Screening and Eradication of Heli-cobacter Pylori? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Family history may inform individuals that they are at risk of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is too extensive to conduct intensive screening strategies for all individuals with family history of GC instead of average-risk screening. To establish more precise prevention strategies, accurate risk estimates are necessary for individuals with family history of GC.
 Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane for all relevant studies from their inception to May 21, 2020, for cohort and case-control studies investigating the association between family history of GC and its risk. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled from studies using random-effects or fixed effects.
 Results: The RR of GC was 2.08 (95% CI=1.86-2.34) in individuals with family history of GC according to twenty-nine case-control studies and 1.83 (95%CI=1.67-2.01) from six cohort studies. The increased risk was higher in individuals with sibling history of GC than those with parental history of GC (RR=3.18, 95% CI=2.12-4.79 vs. RR=1.66, 95% CI=1.46-1.89, P=0.021). For individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives (FDRs) with GC, the RR was 2.81(95% CI=1.89-3.99). Subjects with both family history and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection confer a higher risk of GC (RR = 4.03, 95%CI=2.46-6.59).
 Conclusion: The RR of GC among FDRs is lower than in previous studies. However, the risk of GC is markedly increased in individuals having a sibling with GC, more than 2 FDRs with GC. Intensified screening and eradication therapy for H. pylori could be considered for these individuals.

Systematic review and meta‐analysis: Risk of gastric cancer in patients with first‐degree relatives with gastric cancer

“…Previous meta‐analyses have primarily concentrated on the risk within family history, while this analysis specifically excluded studies that did not specify the degree of relatives or considered second‐ or third‐degree relatives. In this context, this meta‐analysis revealed a higher risk of developing gastric cancer ([OR] = 2.91) compared to previous meta‐analyses 8–10 . This difference could be attributed to a substantial discrepancy in the studies included.…”

“…In this context, this meta-analysis revealed a higher risk of developing gastric cancer ([OR] = 2.91) compared to previous meta-analyses. [8][9][10] This difference could be attributed to a substantial discrepancy in the studies included. Prior meta-analyses emphasised significant heterogeneity, which was addressed by implementing stringent inclusion criteria.…”

“…He et al. 's 2021 meta‐analysis based on 35 studies reported an overall Relative Risk (RR) of 2.00 (95% CI = 1.83–2.20; p < 0.001), and in a subgroup analysis, it identified the risk for patients with first‐degree relatives with gastric cancer (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.88–2.29, p < 0.001) 9 . Another meta‐analysis by Storelli Vitelli et al.…”

“…8 He et al's 2021 meta-analysis based on 35 studies reported an overall Relative Risk (RR) of 2.00 (95% CI = 1.83-2.20; p < 0.001), and in a subgroup analysis, it identified the risk for patients with first-degree relatives with gastric cancer (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.88-2.29, p < 0.001). 9 Another meta-analysis by Storelli Vitelli et al in 2021, which included 17 studies, reported an overall odds ratio of 1.84 (95% CI = 1.64-2.04 p < 0.001). 10 However, none of the previous analyses calculated the quantitative risk by exclusively considering studies of first-degree relatives with gastric cancer.…”