Background: The management of patients with dyspepsia is uncertain. Some authors advocate endoscopy for all; others restrict endoscopy only to patients at high risk of gastric cancer, namely to those above an age threshold, or with a family history, dysphagia, loss of weight, anemia, or a childhood in Asian countries. Still others recommend various combinations between test-and-treat for Helicobacter pylori, anti-secretory treatment, and/or endoscopy.Objective: To highlight the uncertainties in the choice between the various strategies and argue that these uncertainties should be shared with the patient.Method: An overview of reported life expectancy, patient satisfaction, gastric cancer detection rates, symptom relief, and cost effectiveness of the management strategies for dyspepsia.Main Findings: There are no randomized controlled trials of the effect of screening by endoscopy on mortality of patients with gastric cancer. Lower grades of evidence suggest that early diagnosis reduces this mortality. Analyses, which assume a survival benefit of early diagnosis, indicate that mass screening in countries of high incidence gastric cancer (> 10 cases per 100,000) and targeted screening of high-risk persons in countries of low-intermediate incidence (<10 cases per 100,000) is cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $20,000–50,000 per QALY. Prompt endoscopy appears to be best for patient satisfaction and gastric cancer detection, and test-and-treat for H pylori—for symptom relief and avoiding endoscopies.Conclusions: The gain in life expectancy is the main source of uncertainty in the choice between management strategies. This choice should be shared with the patients after explaining uncertainties and eliciting their preferences.
Validation of a Blood Biomarker for Identification of Individuals at High Risk for Gastric Cancer
