Accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity4726 @entity7598 @entity194 @entity1534 @entity7597
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that GastroPanel might be a useful tool for the diagnosis of chronic @entity4726 (CAG) measuring four biomarkers in blood: basal gastrin-17 (G17), pepsinogen I and II ( @entity7597 and @entity7598 ), and @entity1534 @entity1534 antibodies. AIM: To determine the accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG. METHODS: This was a prospective, blinded, multicenter study that included dyspeptic @entity1 . G17, @entity7597 , and @entity7598 were determined by enzyme immunoassays. Three antrum and two corpus biopsies were obtained for standard histological analysis and rapid urease test. Biopsies were analyzed by a single blinded expert pathologist. RESULTS: Ninety-one @entity1 were included (77% @entity1 , mean age 44 years, 51% @entity1534 positive, 17% with CAG). G17 was reduced in @entity1 with antrum CAG (5.4 vs. 13.4   pmol/l; P<0.01) and increased in @entity1 with corpus CAG (11 vs. 24   pmol/l; P<0.05), but its accuracy was only acceptable in the case of corpus localization [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 74%]; @entity7598 difference was almost statistically significant only when testing for corpus @entity194 (33 vs. 21    g/l; P=0.05; AUC=72%). The @entity7597 and @entity7597 / @entity7598 ratio showed no significant differences (AUCs were all unacceptably low). @entity1534 @entity1534 antibody levels were higher in @entity1534 -infected @entity1 (251 vs. 109 EIU, P=0.01; AUC=70). The accuracy of GastroPanel for the diagnosis of CAG was as follows: sensitivity 50%; specificity 80%; positive 25% and negative 92% predictive values; and positive 2.4 and negative 0.6 likelihood ratios. CONCLUSION: GastroPanel is not accurate enough for the diagnosis of CAG; thus, its systematic use in clinical practice cannot be recommended.
