Operations for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

Management of desmoid tumours: A large national database of familial adenomatous patients shows a link to colectomy modalities and low efficacy of medical treatments

BACKGROUND

Desmoid tumours represent a major complication of familial adenomatous polyposis. Our aims were to study the factors associated with the development of desmoid tumours in familial adenomatous polyposis patients, and to describe presentation and management of desmoid tumours.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

We reviewed all patients with familial adenomatous polyposis followed at our institution between 1965-2013, with either identified adenomatous polyposis coli gene mutation, or a personal and family history suggesting adenomatous polyposis coli-related polyposis. Response to treatment of desmoid tumours was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor (RECIST) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis were included with a median follow-up of 19 years since diagnosis. Thirty-one (17%) patients developed 58 desmoid tumours, a median (range) 4.7 (0.8-41.6) years after their diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis. The only factor significantly associated with occurrence of desmoid tumours was the type of surgery: 12 (12%) desmoid tumours in 104 patients treated by colectomy, versus 19 (25%) desmoid tumours in 76 patients treated by proctocolectomy, p = 0.027. The localisation of desmoid tumours was: mesenteric (n = 25), abdominal wall (n = 30) or extra-abdominal (n = 3). Nineteen patients underwent 36 surgical procedures for desmoid tumours. Recurrence occurred in 26 (72%) cases and the recurrence-free survival was 2.6 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2-5.9) years. Thirteen patients received 27 medical treatments over a median 14 months. Objective response was observed in four (15%) patients and the median progression-free survival was nine (95% CI, 1.1-16.9) months.

CONCLUSION

If confirmed, colectomy (versus proctocolectomy) should be performed in adenomatous polyposis coli-related familial adenomatous polyposis patients to avoid desmoid tumours. We show that there is a high prevalence of post-surgical recurrence and the low efficacy of available medical treatments for desmoid tumours.

Desmoid tumour biology in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis coli

BACKGROUND

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is caused by mutations in the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene. Desmoid tumours affect up to 26 per cent of patients and contribute significantly to death. This study aimed to assess the influence of sex and mutation site on desmoid tumour development and sex-specific genetic differences in patients with FAP with and without desmoid tumours.

METHODS

Patients with FAP-associated desmoid tumours recorded in the Heidelberg Polyposis Register between 1991 and 2010 were identified. These patients were analysed with respect to clinical parameters and possible risk factors.

RESULTS

Some 105 patients with FAP-associated desmoid tumours of a total of 585 patients with FAP were analysed. Male patients had a significantly greater number of desmoid tumours and a larger tumour mass, although tumours were more common in female patients. Desmoid tumours in male patients were located more often in the abdominal wall. Seventy-nine (75.2 per cent) of the 105 patients demonstrated a clear temporal association between a previous operation and subsequent desmoid tumour development; most of these patients were female. Mutation sites in male patients were limited to exons 5, 14 and 15, whereas female patients carried mutations along the entire coding region of the APC gene. Twenty-one per cent of patients with desmoid tumours carried mutations within the 'desmoid region', compared with only 4.1 per cent of the control group without desmoids.

CONCLUSION

There are significant sex differences concerning desmoid tumour manifestation. Female patients appear to have a higher risk of desmoid tumour occurrence independent of the mutation site, whereas in male patients the mutation site seems to exert more influence.

Outcome of primary and secondary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to present Swedish experiences of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis from the introduction in 1984. The study also compared the surgical and functional outcome of different anal continence preserving procedures: ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery, ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis, and ileorectal anastomosis alone.

METHODS

The material comprises all 120 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis reported to the Swedish Polyposis Registry who had undergone prophylactic colorectal surgery, including those operated on because of colorectal cancer from 1984 until the end of 1996. Anal continence preserving surgery was performed on 102 patients: 20 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery at a median age of 24.5 years, 39 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery at a median age of 34 years, and 43 had ileorectal anastomosis alone, at a median age of 26 years, because 6 of the initially ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients were converted to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. Surgical outcome was assessed on the basis of hospital records. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the functional outcome. Fisher's exact probability test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 51 percent of the patients after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: 40 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and 56 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. When the previous ileorectal anastomosis was taken into account 67 percent of the patients suffered complications which was significantly more compared with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. After ileorectal anastomosis, 26 percent had complications which was significantly less compared with all other procedures but ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. No cancer occurred after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, either in the ileal pouch or in retained rectal mucosa, but two of the patients who had an ileorectal anastomosis developed rectal cancer. One pouch excision was performed compared with ten rectal excisions. Functional outcome did not differ between ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. However, ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients had significantly better bowel function with regard to nighttime stool frequency, continence and perianal soreness.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that major advantages of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are the low excision rate and, so far, no cancer in the ileal pouch. Moreover, the surgical outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery is not significantly different from that of ileorectal anastomosis. However, the good surgical and functional outcome of ileorectal anastomosis, despite the long-range prognosis including rectal cancer and excision risks, has to be taken into consideration when selecting patients with familial adenomatous polyposis for primary surgery.