Performance of Different Gastric Cancer Screening Methods in Korea: A Population-Based Study

Kui Son Choi, Jae Kwan Jun, Eun-Cheol Park, Sohee Park, Kyu Won Jung, Mi Ah Han, Il Ju Choi and Hoo-Yeon Lee

PLOS ONE, 2012, vol. 7, issue 11, 1-8

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2012
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050041 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 50041&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0050041

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050041

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().