The diagnostic value of serum pepsinogen in gastric diseases and chronic gastritis
10.3760/cma.j.jssn.1673-4904.2016.04.010
- VernacularTitle:血清胃蛋白酶原检测对胃癌和慢性胃炎的意义
- Author:
Jin YU
;
Bin LYU
;
Chen HUANG
;
Lijun CAI
;
Lina MENG
;
Yihong FAN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Gastric neoplasms;
Gastritis;
Pepsinogens
- From:
Chinese Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine
2016;39(4):321-324
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the levels of the serum pepsinogen (PG) in the gastric diseases, and explore the diagnostic value in gastric diseases. Methods Two hundred and fourteen patients who had undergone endoscopy were selected, and the patients were divided into 3 groups according to the results of endoscope pathological diagnosis:chronic superficial gastritis (CSG) group ( 70 cases), chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) group (86 cases) and gastric cancer (GC) group (58 cases). The quantitative chemiluminescence method was used to test serum PGⅠand PGⅡ, and the PGⅠ/PGⅡratio (PGR) was calculated. Results The PGⅠin GC group was significantly higher than that in CAG group: (78.41 ± 55.42) μg/L vs. (53.10 ± 30.08) μg/L, and there was statistical difference (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in PGⅠbetween GC group and CSG group (P>0.05). The PGⅡin GC group was significantly higher than that in CAG group and CSG group: (23.26 ± 17.80) μg/L vs. (13.12 ± 10.23) and (13.78 ± 9.26) μg/L, the PGR was significantly lower than that in CAG group and CSG group:3.67±2.03 vs. 4.88 ± 1.82 and 5.24 ± 1.88, and there were statistical differences (P<0.05). Helicobacter pylori (Hp) was detected in 165 patients, with positive in 29 cases (Hp positive group) and negative in 136 cases (Hp negative group). There was no statistical difference in PG Ⅰ between Hp negative group an Hp positive group:(60.46 ± 45.49)μg/L vs. (72.41 ± 31.85)μg/L, P>0.05. The PGⅡin Hp positive group was significantly higher than that in Hp negative group: (19.58 ± 1.57) μg/L vs. (14.09 ± 13.21) μg/L, the PGR was significantly lower than that in Hp negative group: 3.82 ± 0.18 vs. 4.99 ± 0.18, and there were statistical differences (P<0.05). Conclusions Compared with that in the CSG and CAG patients, the PG Ⅱ in GC patients increases significantly, while PGR descends significantly, but PG Ⅰ has no correlation with the risk of GC. The PG Ⅱ combined with PGR can predict people with high risk of GC, and help with the judgment of Hp infection.
