Cost-effectiveness of screening with polymerase chain reaction for Helicobacter pylori to prevent gastric cancer and peptic ulcers

Introduction

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a known risk factor for gastric cancer, which is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide (1). Though more than half of the global population is infected with H. pylori, rates of colonization vary greatly, with higher rates in lower income nations generally related to socioeconomic status and hygiene levels (2). While most people infected with H. pylori are asymptomatic, approximately 10% develop peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and 1% to 3% develop gastric adenocarcinoma (3). H. pylori promotes gastric carcinogenesis through chronic gastric inflammation which progresses through the stages of atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, to gastric adenocarcinoma (4). Eradication of H. pylori infection has been shown to reduce gastric cancer incidence (5). With more than 60% of gastric cancers attributable to H. pylori, early detection and eradication of infection is important in reducing the risk of cancer (6).

H. pylori infection fulfills many of the criteria for population screening (7). It can be detected through both noninvasive and invasive methods, each with its own advantages and limitations (8). There are a variety of diagnostic tests available yet no single gold standard has been established in clinical practice. However, diagnostic tests with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% are necessary for accurate diagnosis of H. pylori infection. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines recommend noninvasive ¹³C-UBT in populations with low probability of H. pylori infection due to its inexpensive costs and quick results (9). Compared to this, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of gastric biopsies has superior sensitivity and specificity for the detection of H. pylori (10). However, use of PCR testing of gastric biopsies is limited by accessibility, its inherent invasive nature, and expertise level of laboratories. Though screening and treating the population for H. pylori infection may reduce gastric cancer morbidity and mortality, such screening programs can be costly and difficult to implement. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ¹³C-UBT and PCR population screening strategies of H. Pylori for the prevention of PUD and gastric cancer in the United States. We present the following article in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting checklist (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-21-911/rc).

Methods

Model design

A Markov state-transition cohort model was constructed in TreeAge Pro (TreeAge 2020, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA). The model compared three strategies: (I) no screening with opportunistic eradication, (II) single population screening for H. pylori using ¹³C-UBT and treating those who tested positive with eradication therapy, and (III) single population screening for H. pylori with upper endoscopy and PCR of gastric biopsies and treating those who tested positive with eradication therapy. The hypothetical patient for this analysis is a 40-year-old individual from the U.S. general population. A 40-year-old individual was chosen as the target population of our model due to the sharp increase in gastric cancer incidence after 40 years of age (11). Additionally, in countries such as Japan and Korea where screening programs exist, the recommended start age is also 40 years old (12). The model has a cycle length of one year and follows patients for 60 years or until death in order to estimate life time risks of cancer.

Management strategies

The management strategies in our analysis consisted of no screening, population based ¹³C-UBT with eradication therapy, and population-based H. pylori PCR screening with eradication therapy. The health states in our model included H. pylori positive, H. pylori negative, gastric cancer, and death (Figure 1). In addition, both H. pylori positive and negative individuals had ongoing risks of PUD throughout the model. Patients could move from any health state to death due to all-cause mortality, bleeding from peptic ulcers, or gastric cancer.

Figure 1 (A) Model schematic for no screening strategy. Patients can move from any health state to death. (B) Model Schematic for Screening Strategies. Patients can move from any health state to death. HP, Helicobacter pylori; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

In the no screening strategy, the distribution of the cohort at the beginning of the simulation (i.e., cycle 0) was based on U.S. H. pylori prevalence rates. Though none of the patients initially received screening, those who developed PUD were tested with UBT and given eradication therapy.

For the screening strategies, the entire cohort began with screening and eradication therapy was given to those who tested positive (i.e., true- and false-positive). Both first-line triple therapy [proton pump inhibitors (PPI), clarithromycin, and amoxicillin] and second-line quadruple therapy (PPI, bismuth, tetracyline, and metronidazole) were modeled. Individuals who failed both lines of eradication therapy were considered permanently H. pylori positive in the model. Risk of reinfection was restricted to the first five years after successful eradication.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes of interest were total cost, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERS). QALYs are a composite measure of the value of health outcomes that can be used to compare medical interventions where a value of 0 represents death and a value of 1.0 represents a year of perfect health. To calculate a QALY for a patient, we multiplied the utility value associated with a given health state multiplied by the cycle length of 1 year. Life expectancy was calculated as the total number of years the hypothetical patient was alive throughout the model duration without applying the health state utility values that reflected disease morbidity. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Secondary clinical outcomes of interest included total lifetime gastric cancer incidence. In the model, total lifetime gastric cancer incidence was determined by aggregating the proportion of patients who were in the gastric cancer health state with those who died of gastric cancer by the end of the simulation duration.

Parameter estimates and model assumptions

Model parameters were based on estimates from the literature (2,11,13-27). Base-case values and ranges used in sensitivity analyses are summarized in Table 1. H. pylori prevalence in the U.S. was obtained from a meta-analysis by Hooi et al. (2). The cumulative gastric cancer incidence in the no-screening strategy was 0.84% and was calibrated to reflect published SEER life gastric cancer risks for an average 40-year-old in the US (11).

Risks of PUD and gastric cancer varied based on H. pylori status. The incidence of PUD in H. pylori positive individuals was 6- to 10-fold higher than for uninfected individuals (23,34). For patients who were H. pylori negative, they had a 0.66 relative risk of gastric cancer compared to those who were H. pylori positive (15). Due to scarce data regarding gastric cancer risk for individuals who were never infected compared to those were successfully eradicated of H. pylori, the 0.66 relative risk was applied for both groups. Though the risk of gastric cancer in individuals successfully treated of H. pylori could still be higher than the risk for those never infected due to developed gastric atrophy, we assumed the two risks were the same in the principal analysis.

Costs

The present study was performed from a third-party payer perspective. The model included direct medical costs of ¹³C-UBT, upper endoscopy and PCR of gastric biopsies, and eradication therapies (31,32). Gastric cancer treatment costs varied with age and were divided into first year, continuing care, and final year of death (33). Costs were accrued from time of screening until death. Published cost estimates from prior years were converted to 2020 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), and all costs were discounted an annual rate of 3% (35).

Utilities

Quality of life utility values relating to healthy, H. pylori positive, and gastric cancer states were incorporated in our model (28-30). Utility decrements due to upper endoscopy and PUD were also applied. Quality adjusted life years were discounted at an annual rate of 3% (35).

Sensitivity analyses

We performed one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses by altering individual variables across a range of values to investigate the key parameters that most impacted the outcomes of the model. Due to uncertainty in the true clinical efficacy of H. pylori therapy for reducing excess gastric cancer risk, we varied efficacy rates with sensitivity analysis from 30–100%. In addition, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to address parameter uncertainty. β distributions were fitted for transition probabilities and utilities, while γ distributions were fitted for cost parameters. The PSA was performed using Monte Carlo simulations with 100,000 reiterations.

Results

Our base case analysis demonstrated that both ¹³C-UBT and PCR were cost-effective treatment strategies (Table 2). The no-screening strategy yielded the lowest costs at $1,146.55 and the lowest QALY with 21.99. The ¹³C-UBT strategy had a total cost of $1,201.19 and resulted in 22.45 QALY. The PCR strategy was the most expensive strategy at $2,329.69 and yielded 22.48 QALY. Compared to the ¹³C-UBT strategy, in the context of an efficiency frontier, the ICER for the PCR strategy was $38,591.89 per QALY. Compared with the no-screening strategy, the ICER was $2,373.43 per QALY for the PCR strategy and $116.46 per QALY for the ¹³C-UBT strategy.

The cumulative gastric cancer incidence in the no-screening strategy was 0.84% and was calibrated to reflect published SEER life gastric cancer risks for an average 40-year-old in the US (11). The lifetime gastric cancer incidence for the PCR strategy and ¹³C-UBT strategy was 0.74% and 0.75% respectively. In the no-screening strategy, there was a 14.8% lifetime risk of PUD. In the PCR and UBT strategies, the lifetime risk of PUD dropped to 6.0% and 6.4%, respectively.

When each H. pylori eradication strategy was compared to the no-screening strategy, the results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ¹³C-UBT and PCR strategies were most sensitive to the risk of gastric cancer if H. pylori positive, the risk of gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication, H. pylori prevalence, and costs of screening (Figure 2). However, even within the prescribed ranges of the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ¹³C-UBT and PCR strategies remained more cost effective than the no-screening strategy. When varying the efficacy of H. pylori eradication from 30–100%, PCR remained the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $100,000 per QALY (Figure 3).

Figure 2 Tornado diagrams. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; HP, Helicobacter pylori; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

Figure 3 Sensitivity analysis of HP eradication gastric cancer efficacy. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; HP, Helicobacter pylori; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to present the results of the PSA and determine the probability of any strategy being the cost effective at a given WTP (Figure 4). When the WTP was <$5,000 per QALY, the no screening strategy was the most cost-effective strategy majority of the time. As the WTP exceeded $60,000 per QALY, PCR became the cost-effective the majority of times.

Figure 4 PSA cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. PSA, probabilistic sensitivity analysis; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; CE, cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

In this study, we compared the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different population-based H. pylori screening strategies for the prevention of gastric cancer for average 40-year-old Americans. To our knowledge, our study is the first to determine the cost-effectiveness of PCR as a potential screening strategy. Based on our results, the PCR strategy was the most cost-effective at the prescribed WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY as it resulted in the lowest lifetime risks of gastric cancer at 0.74% and PUD at 6.0%.

Our study findings are similar to the conclusions of prior cost-effectiveness analyses that suggest population-based screening and eradication treatment can be a viable option for the reduction of gastric cancer (36,37). While previous cost-effectiveness studies focused mostly on gastric cancer reduction, we also considered the additional benefits of H. pylori screening and eradication on PUD. Relative to gastric cancer, the incidence of PUD is much higher and can confer significant physical and financial burden in patients due to hospitalization costs, bothersome symptoms, and chronic PPI use. Our model determined that screening and eradicating H. pylori decreased the lifetime incidence of PUD from 14.8% to 6%. The inclusion of PUD allowed us to incorporate opportunistic eradication within the no screening strategy and provide a more clinically accurate representation within our model to mitigate any bias towards the intervention strategies.

Due to its superior sensitivity and specificity, PCR screening and treatment of H. pylori can achieve significant benefits towards long term gastric cancer reduction. However, implementation of population PCR screening is challenged by unequal availability of necessary diagnostic facilities. Furthermore, PCR of gastric biopsies requires endoscopy, an invasive procedure that comes with risk of complications such as perforation, although rates may be as low as 0.009–0.02% (38). As determined by our model, compared to no screening, ¹³C-UBT is a cost-effective and noninvasive alternative that also reduces gastric cancer and PUD. While the results of our model showed only marginal benefits towards gastric cancer reduction with PCR compared to ¹³C-UBT, there can be cases where the most accurate measures are required. High risk patients for gastric cancer, such as in the context of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer or Lynch syndrome, often have earlier onset and worst prognoses (39). In these higher risk populations, PCR screening and treating of H. pylori could be recommended due to its superior sensitivity and specify to reduce as much excess risk of gastric cancer as possible. With PCR’s superior performance characteristics, the small incremental benefits could lead to cancer and overall outcome benefits even when accounting for potential net negative consequences such as perforations.

Our study does have several limitations. Data were combined from multiple sources and some values for variables were imprecise. The relative risk of gastric cancer for H. pylori positive patients in our model was more conservative than what other studies had published (26,40). However, this conservative measure would bias the results of our model against screening and treatment. Adherence to eradication therapy is critical to the effectiveness of screening programs, and within our model we assumed 100% adherence. Compliance to a treatment program is a multifactorial process which can include factors such as complexity of treatment, trust in doctor-patient relations, and side effects of treatment. Incorporating such factors into the model was not possible and therefore a limitation in our study. While 100% adherence is not feasible in a real-world context, we assumed a perfect scenario for model simplicity and function. The exact efficacy of H. pylori therapy toward gastric cancer reduction is unknown. We assumed 100% efficacy in our principal analysis but varied the efficacy from 30–100% within the sensitivity analysis to account for this limitation. While development of resistance to existing eradication therapies is an important consideration, and significant concern to public health, it is difficult to quantify the specific clinical harm it would confer to an individual patient and therefore was not included in our model. Risk of antibiotic resistance is a significant concern to public health and a considerable counterargument to a population wide test and treat strategy. Though implementation of population screening can be challenged by risks of antibiotic resistance, PCR screening can confer an additional advantage by determining which strains of H. pylori could be carrying genes for antibiotic resistance. Beyond even clarithromycin resistance, rates of multi-drug resistance in H. pylori are increasing worldwide (41,42). The efficacy of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ standardized therapy approach will continue to decline as strains with different permutations of drug resistance flourish. Therefore, tailored therapy based on PCR results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing, is an alternative method of treatment that can significantly improve eradication rates and decrease costs by reducing the need for re-tests and later line treatments. PCR could also provide similar benefits when testing strains for cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) status. As CagA positive strains are associated with higher risk of gastric cancer development, patients that are determined CagA negative by PCR could potentially withhold or delay eradication treatment for surveillance. While our study focused on the attributable risk of gastric cancer due to H. pylori infection, we do not account for inherited predispositions to gastric cancers. Though inherited gastric cancers make up only small fraction of all gastric cancers, the subset of the population with these heightened risk factors can benefit from a PCR screening strategy as cancer onset often occurs at younger ages for them. Furthermore, we did not consider the potential adverse effects of curing H. pylori, such as the development of reflux esophagitis, esophageal cancer, and autoimmune diseases (43,44). Rubenstein et al. have observed infection with H. pylori was inversely associated with esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus, while Lin et al. have noted increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease after receiving H. pylori treatment (44,45).

Model uncertainty is an inevitable challenge faced in cost-effectiveness analyses. While the true efficacy of H. pylori eradication toward gastric cancer reduction is controversial, our model remained robust despite varying efficacy rates. Although our study considers the benefits of screening specifically within the United States, other countries with higher prevalence of H. pylori and gastric cancer, screening and treating could be even more cost-effective, or possibly cost-saving. In the US context, there is a wide ethnic and racial disparity in H. pylori and gastric cancer prevalence and incidence. While our model does not take into account specific racial and ethnic differences in gastric cancer risk, cost-effectiveness studies targeted for immigrants and people from higher risk regions and people groups could show increased effectiveness of screening programs.

Conclusions

In summary, our modeling analysis finds that H. pylori testing with upper endoscopy and PCR testing of gastric biopsies is a cost-effective option to prevent gastric cancer and PUD in the US population. Additional clinical studies to affirm some of our model assumptions, especially those regarding the differences in risk of gastric cancer between individuals cured of H. pylori and those were never infected with H. pylori, are needed. A preprint has previously been published (46).

Acknowledgments

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [grant number CA0136969 to CH].

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the CHEERS reporting checklist. Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-21-911/rc

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-21-911/coif). CH reports grant U01CA265729 and consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK, et al. Global Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology 2017;153:420-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Wroblewski LE, Peek RM Jr, Wilson KT. Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer: factors that modulate disease risk. Clin Microbiol Rev 2010;23:713-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Yao X, Smolka AJ. Gastric Parietal Cell Physiology and Helicobacter pylori-Induced Disease. Gastroenterology 2019;156:2158-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Chen HN, Wang Z, Li X, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication cannot reduce the risk of gastric cancer in patients with intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia: evidence from a meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer 2016;19:166-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Parkin DM. The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer 2006;118:3030-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968.
8. Wang YK, Kuo FC, Liu CJ, et al. Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: Current options and developments. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:11221-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Chey WD, Wong BCPractice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1808-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Patel SK, Pratap CB, Jain AK, et al. Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori: what should be the gold standard? World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:12847-59. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016 [Internet]. National Cancer Institute. 2019. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016/
12. Lin JT. Screening of gastric cancer: who, when, and how. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:135-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Arias E, Xu J. United States Life Tables, 2017. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics System 2019;68:1-65.
14. Ferwana M, Abdulmajeed I, Alhajiahmed A, et al. Accuracy of urea breath test in Helicobacter pylori infection: meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:1305-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Ford AC, Forman D, Hunt R, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication for the prevention of gastric neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;CD005583. [PubMed]
16. Gisbert JP. Second-line rescue therapy of helicobacter pylori infection. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2009;2:331-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Gisbert JP, Calvet X. Review article: the effectiveness of standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori has not changed over the last decade, but it is not good enough. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:1255-68. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Kowada A. Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening followed by eradication treatment for employees in Japan. Epidemiol Infect 2018;146:1834-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Lanas A, García-Rodríguez LA, Polo-Tomás M, et al. The changing face of hospitalisation due to gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:585-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Lee YC, Chiang TH, Chou CK, et al. Association Between Helicobacter pylori Eradication and Gastric Cancer Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2016;150:1113-1124.e5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Niv Y, Hazazi R. Helicobacter pylori recurrence in developed and developing countries: meta-analysis of 13C-urea breath test follow-up after eradication. Helicobacter 2008;13:56-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Schabereiter-Gurtner C, Hirschl AM, Dragosics B, et al. Novel real-time PCR assay for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection and simultaneous clarithromycin susceptibility testing of stool and biopsy specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:4512-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Sipponen P, Varis K, Fräki O, et al. Cumulative 10-year risk of symptomatic duodenal and gastric ulcer in patients with or without chronic gastritis. A clinical follow-up study of 454 outpatients. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990;25:966-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Sugano K. Effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on the incidence of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer 2019;22:435-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Sung JJ, Kuipers EJ, El-Serag HB. Systematic review: the global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;29:938-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Vohlonen I, Pukkala E, Malila N, et al. Risk of gastric cancer in Helicobacter pylori infection in a 15-year follow-up. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51:1159-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Zhao Y, Encinosa W. Hospitalizations for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in 1998 and 2006: Statistical Brief #65. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2006.
28. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000;38:583-637. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Areia M, Alves S, Brito D, et al. Health-related quality of life and utilities in gastric premalignant conditions and malignant lesions: a multicentre study in a high prevalence country. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2014;23:371-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
30. Groeneveld PW, Lieu TA, Fendrick AM, et al. Quality of life measurement clarifies the cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication in peptic ulcer disease and uninvestigated dyspepsia. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:338-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Holmes KP, Fang JC, Jackson BR. Cost-effectiveness of six strategies for Helicobacter pylori diagnosis and management in uninvestigated dyspepsia assuming a high resource intensity practice pattern. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:344. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Boklage SH, Mangel AW, Ramamohan V, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal noninvasive testing for post-treatment confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication and the impact of patient adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:1025-35. [PubMed]
33. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:117-28. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Kuipers EJ, Thijs JC, Festen HP. The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995;9:59-69. [PubMed]
35. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093-103. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Fendrick AM, Chernew ME, Hirth RA, et al. Clinical and economic effects of population-based Helicobacter pylori screening to prevent gastric cancer. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:142-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Xie F, Luo N, Lee HP. Cost effectiveness analysis of population-based serology screening and (13)C-Urea breath test for Helicobacter pylori to prevent gastric cancer: a markov model. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:3021-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. Kang DH, Ryu DG, Choi CW, et al. Clinical outcomes of iatrogenic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic perforation: a 10-year study. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19:218. [Crossref] [PubMed]
39. Hansford S, Kaurah P, Li-Chang H, et al. Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer Syndrome: CDH1 Mutations and Beyond. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:23-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Helicobacter and Cancer Collaborative Group. Gastric cancer and Helicobacter pylori: a combined analysis of 12 case control studies nested within prospective cohorts. Gut 2001;49:347-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
41. Boyanova L, Hadzhiyski P, Kandilarov N, et al. Multidrug resistance in Helicobacter pylori: current state and future directions. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2019;12:909-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Hulten KG, Lamberth LB, Kalfus IN, et al. National and Regional US Antibiotic Resistance to Helicobacter pylori: Lessons From a Clinical Trial. Gastroenterology 2021;161:342-4.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Labenz J, Blum AL, Bayerdörffer E, et al. Curing Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with duodenal ulcer may provoke reflux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1442-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Lin KD, Chiu GF, Waljee AK, et al. Effects of Anti-Helicobacter pylori Therapy on Incidence of Autoimmune Diseases, Including Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:1991-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM, Scheiman J, et al. Association between Helicobacter pylori and Barrett's esophagus, erosive esophagitis, and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:239-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. Oh A, Truong H, Kim J, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening With Polymerase Chain Reaction For Helicobacter Pylori To Prevent Gastric Cancer And Peptic Ulcers. Available online: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-657186/v1