Background and aims Patients with hyperplastic polyposis syndrome (HPS) receive endoscopic surveillance to prevent malignant progression of polyps. However, the optimal treatment and surveillance protocol for these patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and pathological features of a large HPS cohort during multiple years of endoscopic surveillance.
Methods Databases were searched for patients with HPS, who were analysed retrospectively. Endoscopy reports and histopathology reports were collected to evaluate frequency of endoscopic surveillance and to obtain information regarding polyp and the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC).
Results In 77 patients with HPS, 1984 polyps were identified during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 years (range: 0.5–26.6). In 27 (35%) patients CRC was detected of which 22 (28.5%) at initial endoscopy. CRC was detected during surveillance in five patients (cumulative incidence: 6.5%) after a median follow-up time of 1.3 years and a median interval of 11 months. Of these interval CRCs, 4/5 were detected in diminutive serrated polyps (range: 4–16 mm). The cumulative risk of CRC under surveillance was 7% at 5 years. At multivariate logistic regression, an increasing number of hyperplastic polyps (OR 1.05, p=0.013) and serrated adenomas (OR 1.09, p=0.048) was significantly associated with CRC presence.
Conclusions HPS patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance have an increased CRC risk. The number of serrated polyps is positively correlated with the presence of CRC in HPS, thus supporting a ‘serrated pathway’ to CRC. To prevent malignant progression, adequate detection and removal of all polyps seems advisable. If this is not feasible, surgical resection should be considered.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked articles 195032.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted in accordance with the research code of our institutional medical ethics committee on human experimentation, as well as in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.