Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Appendoscopy in patients with serrated polyposis syndrome
  1. Rachel Hallit,
  2. Maximilien Barret,
  3. Arthur Belle,
  4. Einas Abou Ali,
  5. Marion Dhooge,
  6. Romain Coriat,
  7. Stanislas Chaussade
  1. Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Department, Hopital Cochin - GH APHP Centre - Université de Paris, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rachel Hallit, Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Department, Hospital Cochin, Paris 75014, Île-de-France, France; rachelhallit{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 read with great interest the study by McKay et al highlighting the topic of appendiceal involvement in patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS).1 Considering a 68% prevalence of serrated lesions of the appendix in a series of 34 patients with SPS treated by colectomy,2 and the difficulty of ruling out an invasion of the appendiceal lumen in case of periappendiceal serrated lesions, the authors advocated prophylactic appendectomy in patients with SPS.

SPS is the most frequent polyposis syndrome, with a prevalence of 0.42% in primary screening cohorts.3 While surgery remains needed for a third of the patients at inception due to the presence of an adenocarcinoma or a lesion burden not amenable …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RH, MD: Writing original draft preparation, methodology, software. MB, MD, PhD: Conceptualisation, writing—review and editing. AB, MD: Resources, editing. EAA, MD, MSc: Resources, editing, software. MD, MD: Resources, editing. RC, MD, PhD: Resources, editing, supervision. SC, MD, PhD: Conceptualisation, supervision.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

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