Article Text

Download PDFPDF
High prevalence of hyperplastic polyposis syndrome (serrated polyposis) in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme
  1. Sujata Biswas1,
  2. Antony J Ellis1,
  3. Richard Guy2,
  4. Helen Savage3,
  5. Karen Madronal3,
  6. James E East1
  1. 1Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
  2. 2Department of Colorectal Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
  3. 3Bowel Cancer Screening, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr. James E. East, Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Experimental Medicine Division, Nuffield Dept of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK; jameseast6{at}

Statistics from

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.

Two papers have recently been published in Gut by Boparai et al.1 and Edelstein et al.2 regarding the risks of hyperplastic polyposis syndrome (HPS), also called serrated polyposis. Both suggest a substantial cancer risk and continued development of serrated polyps associated with the syndrome. Previous reports have suggested that the prevalence of hyperplastic polyposis syndrome is relatively low in the general population (1:3000; 0.033%)3 with recent correspondence in Gut from Orlowska4 on this issue suggesting even lower levels (1:100 000). However, we noticed a number of cases during bowel cancer screening colonoscopy based on guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and, therefore, formally assessed this within our screening cohort in an audit as part of service development. Currently, the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors were involved in data collection. Dr Biswas and Dr East collated and analysed the results.

  • Competing interests None.

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