Clinical Utility of Serum Pepsinogen Levels as a Screening Test of Atrophic Gastritis

Background : Atrophic gastritis is a well known risk factor for gastric adenocarcinoma. Its confirmatory diagnosis requires histology via endoscopy, which is an invasive method; therefore, periodic follow up evaluation as a screening method is difficult to perform. We evaluated the clinical utility of serum pepsinogens (PG) as a biomarker for screening of atrophic gastritis. Methods : The study population consisted of 130 selected dyspeptic patients (M:F=52:78; age, 16-105 yrs; mean age, 50.8 yrs) who had undergone a diagnostic endoscopy. The serum pepsinogen test was performed by a latex turbidimetric immunoassay method (HBI, Korea) using Toshiba200FR automatic analyzer. The PGI, II level and PGI:PGII ratio of non-atrophic gastritis group were compared with those of atrophic gastritis group, and a correlation with Helicobacter pylori infection was examined. Cut-off points for screening of atrophic gastritis were determined. Results : The mean serum concentration of PGI showed a decline from normal (60.7 ng/mL), nonatrophic gastritis (54.2 ng/mL), and atrophic gastritis (51.8 ng/mL) to gastric adenocarcinoma (32.6 ng/mL). The mean ratio of PGI:PGII was lower in atrophic gastritis (3.2) compared to non-atrophic gastritis (4.7) (P=0.021). In patients with H. pylori infection, the mean serum PGII level was higher and the PGI:PGII ratio was lower than those in patients without H. pylori infection, and the differences were statistically significant. For screening of atrophic gastritis, the best cut-off point of PGI:PGII ratio was 4, with a sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 91.7%. Conclusions : The serum pepsinogen test is a useful biomarker for screening of atrophic gastritis, a well-known precancerous lesion of gastric adenocarcinoma. Measuring both pepsinogen I and II concentrations simultaneously to obtain pepsinogen I/II ratio provides a clinically useful information for the detection of atrophic gastritis. (Korean J Lab Med 2008;28:201-6)