Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Serrated polyposis syndrome may go undiagnosed even in structured colorectal cancer screening programmes performed by endoscopists with otherwise good quality indices
  1. Christoph Schramm1,
  2. Katharina Janhsen2,
  3. Münevver Demir1,
  4. Dirk Nierhoff1,
  5. Tobias Goeser1,
  6. Hans Michael Steffen1
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  2. 2 Department of Gastroenterology, St. Katharinen Hospital, Frechen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christoph Schramm, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Cologne 50937,North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany; christoph.schramm{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.

We have read the article by Ijspeert et al with great interest as it comprises the largest series of colonoscopies concerning the serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) published so far.1 SPS is characterised by multiple serrated polyps (SP) throughout the colon and it is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).2 A 5-year cumulative incidence of CRC during surveillance after clearing of all relevant polyps of 1.5% has been reported.2 Recently published guidelines recommend resection of all clinically relevant lesions and starting annual colonoscopy surveillance thereafter.3 Therefore, early recognition and treatment of SPS is important to achieve low long-term risk of CRC.4

We retrospectively analysed 4161 primary screening colonoscopies of average-risk individuals aged ≥50 years performed by 15 different experienced gastroenterologists (≥300 colonoscopies of all indications per year during the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CS, KJ, and HMS: responsible for planning and conduct in the study and collection of data. CS, KJ, MD, DN, TG and HMS: were responsible for interpreting the data and drafting the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.

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