Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(01): E39-E42
DOI: 10.1055/a-1958-2529
Original article

Impact of changing diagnostic criteria on the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome

Connor D. McWhinney
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Rachel E. Lahr
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Christopher J. Lee
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Ahmed El-Rahyel
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Douglas K. Rex
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The World Health Organization criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) were established in 2010 and modified in 2019. Neither set of criteria have been validated against genetic markers or proven to be the optimal criteria for defining colorectal cancer risk in patients with serrated colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to gain insight into how frequently the change in SPS criteria in 2019 impacted the diagnosis of SPS.

Patients and methods We reviewed 279 patients with SPS diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 using the 2010 criteria (n = 163) or since 2019 using the 2019 criteria (n = 116). We reviewed whether patients in each group met the diagnosis of SPS by the alternative criteria.

Results Of those diagnosed using 2010 criteria, 5.5 % did not meet 2019 criteria. Of those diagnosed by 2019 criteria, 10.3 % did not meet 2010 criteria.

Conclusions Most patients with SPS in our database met the diagnosis of SPS by both 2010 and 2019 criteria, with only 5 % to 10 % of patients in each cohort not meeting the alternative diagnostic criteria.



Publication History

Received: 26 July 2022

Accepted after revision: 28 September 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
10 October 2022

Article published online:
04 January 2023

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Fousekis FS, Mitselos IV, Christodoulou DK. Diagnosis, epidemiology and management of serrated polyposis syndrome: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Transl Res 2021; 13: 5786-5795
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Muller C, Yamada A, Ikegami S. et al. Risk of colorectal cancer in serrated polyposis syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 160: 622-630.e627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bleijenberg AGC, IJspeert JEG, Hazewinkel Y. et al. The long-term outcomes and natural disease course of serrated polyposis syndrome: over 10 years of prospective follow-up in a specialized center. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 1098-1107.e1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dekker E, Bleijenberg A, Balaguer F. et al. Update on the World Health Organization criteria for diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1520-1523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Snover D, Ahnen DJ, Burt RW. et al. Serrated polyps of the colon and rectum and serrated (“hyperplastic”) polyposis. In: Bozman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH. et al. WHO classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the digestive system. 4th edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Rosty C, Brosens L, Dekker E. et al. Serrated polyposis. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board Digestive System Tumours. Lyon, France: IARC; 2019. (WHO Classification of Tumours series; 5th edn)
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bleijenberg AGC, Roos VH, IJspeert JEG. et al. Multiple serrated polyps and serrated polyposis syndrome: equally hazardous?. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 1692-1693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rex DK, Helbig CC. High yields of small and flat adenomas with high-definition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 42-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rex DK, Slaven JE, Garcia J. et al. Endocuff Vision reduces inspection time without decreasing lesion detection: a clinical randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 158-162.e151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rex DK, Sullivan AW, Perkins AJ. et al. Colorectal polyp prevalence and aspirational detection targets determined using high definition colonoscopy and a high level detector in 2017. Dig Liver Dis 2020; 52: 72-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. et al. High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 335-344.e332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL. et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 MacPhail ME, Thygesen SB, Patel N. et al. Endoscopic control of polyp burden and expansion of surveillance intervals in serrated polyposis syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 96-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Failure to recognize serrated polyposis syndrome in a cohort with large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1206-1210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar