ArticleGastro hep advances2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Serum Pepsinogen as a Gastric Cancer Targeted Screening Strategy in the United States.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generational immigration status and gastric cancer incidence among Japanese descendants: an analysis of the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Biomarkers in Gastric Cancer: Blood Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsy, Artificial Intelligence, and Risk-Stratified Care.Cancers · 2026Review
- The Gut Microbiome's Impact on the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Gastric Cancer-An Updated Literature Review.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Current gastric cancer (GC) screening modalities are invasive and expensive. Noninvasive screening for GC precursors with serum pepsinogen (PG) may improve early detection and prevention. Test characteristics of PG based on US prospective data was recently reported and used to study the cost-effectiveness of PG screening vs no screening in the US. Methods: A patient-level state transition microsimulation of gastric adenocarcinoma analyzed noninvasive screening vs no screening in a hypothetical cohort of average risk US individuals. Primary outcomes included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included total GC incidence and mortality. Base-case PG sensitivity and specificity were 34.1% and 94.7%, respectively, with a wide range of PG performance characteristics also examined. Results: One-time serum PG screening at age 40 was cost-effective compared to no screening with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4913.29 per quality-adjusted life year. PG screening resulted in 10.9% relative reduction in lifetime GC incidence and 10.8% relative decrease in cumulative GC mortality. Localized stage at diagnosis increased from 30.5% to 33.6% and metastatic stage decreased from 40.8% to 37.4%. Sensitivity analysis showed PG screening was most sensitive to endoscopy costs, chronic atrophic gastritis quality of life, and PG prevalence. PG screening remained cost-effective across a wide range of test values. Conclusion: PG screening is a cost-effective strategy to improve GC mortality; however, mortality benefit will depend on the test characteristics of the biomarker. Future blood-based screening tests that have better performance characteristics could further improve GC prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.