You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 78, Issue 2
  • Staging of operative link on gastritis assessment and operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia systems for risk assessment of early gastric cancer: a case–control study

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Staging of operative link on gastritis assessment and operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia systems for risk assessment of early gastric cancer: a case–control study
  1. Yu Huang,
  2. Jinnan Chen,
  3. Yixian Guo,
  4. Zhaohui Ding,
  5. Xiao Liang,
  6. Wei Zhang,
  7. Hanbing Xue,
  8. Yunjia Zhao,
  9. Xiaobo Li,
  10. Hong Lu
  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, NHC Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Xiaobo Li; lxb_1969{at}163.com; Dr Hong Lu; hlu{at}sjtu.edu.cn

Abstract

Aims Operative link on gastritis assessment (OLGA) and operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment (OLGIM) systems are histological staging systems of gastritis for gastric cancer (GC) risk estimation. Intermediate OLGA/OLGIM stages are of concern in a region with high incidence of GC. This study aimed to validate OLGA and OLGIM staging systems for early GC (EGC) in Chinese population.

Methods This single-centre, case–control study included 196 patients with EGC and 196 age-matched and sex-matched health screening control subjects. OLGA and OLGIM systems, and other clinical parameters were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

Results OLGA and OLGIM stages II/III/IV were more prevalent in patients with EGC than in the control subjects. Multivariable analysis revealed family history of GC, previous Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, OLGA stages II and III-IV, OLGIM stages II and III-IV as independent risk factors for EGC (ORs, 4.04, 1.87, 2.52, 6.79, 4.11 and 10.78, respectively). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on EGC risk estimation was improved for OLGIM compared with OLGA (0.78 vs 0.71, p<0.001). Autoantibody seropositivity of gastric mucosa was not associated with EGC risk stratified by H. pylori status.

Conclusions Surveillance of intermediate-risk patients (OLGA/OLGIM II) should be emphasised in our region. The OLGIM may be preferred over the OLGA for EGC risk estimation.

  • helicobacter pylori
  • gastroenterology
  • gastrointestinal neoplasms

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2023-209209

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Vikram Deshpande.

    • YH and JC contributed equally.

    • Contributors HL: study concept and design, revision of the manuscript, obtained funding, study supervision; the guarantor . XL: study concept and design, acquisition of data and study supervision. YH and JC: acquisition of data, analysis and integration of data, drafting of the manuscript and critical revision of the manuscript. YG, ZD, XL, WZ, HX and YZ: acquisition of data and study supervision.

    • Funding This study was supported by the grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81970497 and 82170578).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.