Increased prevalance of colorectal adenoma in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Nonampullary Duodenal Lesions: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Nonampullary duodenal polyps are found in up to 5% of all upper endoscopies; the vast majority are identified incidentally in asymptomatic patients. Although most are benign, adenomas are estimated to account for 10%-20% of these lesions. Most international guidelines recommend that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection; this may be associated with a near 15% adverse event rate (predominantly bleeding and perforation) in prospective studies, with substantial local recurrence on surveillance. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be evaluated and risk-stratified for duodenal polyps, the best approaches to endoscopic resection and surveillance, and management of complications, highlighting opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Non-neoplastic duodenal lesions (eg, metaplastic foveolar epithelium and gastric heterotopia) may mimic neoplastic adenomatous pathology. Careful optical evaluation and pathologic correlation may be necessary to exclude dysplasia. Nondysplastic lesions do not require endoscopic resection unless they are symptomatic or bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Ideal duodenal endoscopic inspection includes identification of the major and minor papilla with photodocumentation to ensure no involvement by the lesion. Adding a clear distal attachment device to a forward-viewing gastroscope improves visualization of the papilla and the medial wall. A side-viewing duodenoscope should be used when the major and minor papilla are not visible with the gastroscope and for most lesions on the medial wall of the duodenum within 5 cm of the ampulla. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: All duodenal polyps should be described according to their size, Paris morphology, suspected histologic layer of origin (mucosal lesion or subepithelial lesion), duodenal location (D1-4) and orientation (anterior, posterior, medial, or lateral wall), and proximity/relationship to the major papilla to facilitate therapeutic planning and subsequent surveillance. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Given the high frequency of concomitant colonic adenomas in patients with duodenal adenomas, on identification of a duodenal adenoma, a colonoscopy should be performed if a high-quality examination has not been performed in the last 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Routine small bowel investigation (ie, capsule endoscopy) is not advised in patients with sporadic and nonsporadic duodenal adenomas. Periodic small bowel inspection with capsule endoscopy may be of benefit in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Definitive treatment of duodenal adenomas by endoscopic resection is less morbid, resource-intensive, and expensive than surgery and is therefore the preferred treatment option. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Due to the risk of malignant transformation, all sporadic duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection. However, in comparison with colonic adenomas, the time course to malignant transformation may be more prolonged, and the risk of resection-related morbidity much greater. Therefore, the comorbidities and anticipated longevity of the patient must be carefully factored into the decision-making process. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The approach to endoscopic duodenal resection (ie, hot vs cold and conventional vs underwater endoscopic mucosal resection) should be individualized to reduce bleeding risk, based on lesion size, morphology, patient comorbidities, and endoscopist comfort level with specific techniques. Piecemeal cold snare resection for flat duodenal adenomas mitigates postprocedural bleeding risk and, for lesions <20 mm, is effective and carries a minimal risk of recurrence. In patients with comorbidities with flat nonbulky lesions measuring < 20 mm, cold snare resection can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Currently, duodenal adenomas >20 mm or with large Paris subtype Is components should be removed by conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection. Thermal ablation of the post-endoscopic mucosal resection margin to mitigate the risk of recurrence to <2%-5% is safe and effective and should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Endoscopists performing duodenal polyp resection should be aware of the increased risk of postprocedural bleeding (compared with elsewhere in the gastrointestinal tract), which usually occurs in the first 48 hours after the procedure, with the risk proportional to the lesion size. For lesions >3 cm, bleeding risk is >25% and may be life-threatening and associated with hemodynamic compromise; however, after resuscitation, endoscopic hemostasis is generally effective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Evaluation of the postpolypectomy/endoscopic mucosal resection defect is critical to identify concerns for postprocedural duodenal perforation, which, if unrecognized and left untreated, may be life-threatening and often mandates surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Initial endoscopic surveillance for a completely resected duodenal adenoma should be undertaken at an interval of 6 months. Although usually diminutive, recurrence is often scarred and not amenable to conventional snare resection and may require avulsion techniques to achieve cure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Nonampullary duodenal adenomas associated with familial adenomatous polyposis should be considered for endoscopic resection based on size (≥1 cm), morphologic characteristics, advanced histology (ie, high-grade dysplasia), and/or based on Spiegelman criteria.

High frequency of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic adenomas or adenocarcinomas of the papilla of Vater: The same adenoma-carcinoma sequence?

BACKGROUND

Data on the frequency of colorectal neoplasia in sporadic ampullary tumors remains scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 135 patients undergoing endoscopic ampullectomy from January 2018 to July 2021, and identified 95 patients with sporadic ampullary adenoma who underwent total colonoscopy. Colonoscopy findings were compared with 380 asymptomatic controls using the chi-squared test. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed on one patient with synchronous adenomas of the ampulla of Vater and ascending colon.

RESULTS

Colorectal polyps were present in 60% of Cases vs. 34.7% of Controls (P = 0.001), advanced adenoma in 20% vs. 5.5%, and adenocarcinoma in 4.2% vs. 0.8%. Cases tended to have larger polyps than Controls (P<0.001), while there was no difference in polyp location and histology between the two groups. The odds ratio of all the colorectal lesions, advanced colorectal adenoma and adenocarcinoma in Cases was 1.7, 4.2, and 4, respectively. WES in one patient revealed that both of ampullary adenoma and colonic adenoma shared somatic ABCB1 mutation.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of colorectal polyps or neoplasia was significantly higher in Cases than Controls. We proposed that ampullary neoplasia is analogous to colon lesions and warrants total colonoscopy screening in patients diagnosed with ampullary tumors.

Small Bowel Malignancies in Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy for Iron Deficiency Anemia

Small bowel malignancies are rare and usually asymptomatic or symptoms are nonspecific. Therefore, small bowel tumors are difficult to diagnose. In patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) who have negative bidirectional endoscopy results, the small bowel may be considered the source of bleeding. However, in asymptomatic IDA patients with negative bidirectional endoscopy results, evidence supporting the routine use of capsule endoscopy (CE) is insufficient. CE can be considered in selected patients with recurrent or persistent IDA. The frequency of small bowel malignancies is low in patients undergoing CE for IDA, but the usefulness of CE for the diagnosis of small bowel malignancies in younger age groups with IDA has been reported. For patients with risk factors for small bowel malignancy, investigation of the small bowel should be considered. Efforts should be made to prevent adverse events, such as capsule retention or capsule aspiration, through meticulous history taking and endoscopic capsule delivery as necessary.

The prevalence of small-bowel polyps on video capsule endoscopy in patients with sporadic duodenal or ampullary adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although sporadic duodenal and/or ampullary adenomas (DAs) are uncommon, they are increasingly diagnosed during upper endoscopy. These patients have a 3- to 7-fold increased risk of colonic neoplasia compared with the normal population. It is unknown, however, whether they also have an increased risk of additional small-bowel (SB) polyps. Our aim was to establish the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with DA.

METHODS

In a single-center, prospective study, we used video capsule endoscopy (VCE) to investigate the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with a DA compared with patients undergoing VCE for obscure GI bleeding or iron deficiency anemia.

RESULTS

Over 25 months, 201 patients were enrolled in the study; the mean age was 65 years and 47% were male. There were 101 control patients and 100 cases of DA cases (mean size, 30 mm (range, 10-80 mm)). We did not identify any SB polyps in either group. Colonic polyps were found more frequently in the DA group compared with controls (61% versus 37%, respectively (P =.002)). Advanced colonic adenoma (high-grade dysplasia, >10 mm, villous histology) were found in 18% of the DA group and 5% of the control group (P =.018).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that patients with a DA are not at risk for additional SB polyps and hence do not support screening with VCE. However, colonoscopy is mandatory due to the significantly higher risk of colonic polyps including advanced adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02470416.).

Sporadic duodenal adenoma and association with colorectal neoplasia: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Sporadic duodenal adenomas are uncommon. Prior studies show that patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma have increased risk of colorectal neoplasia and should undergo colorectal screening. However, the nature of the risk, location, and type of colorectal neoplasia are not well studied.

AIM

We aimed to identify the risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients who have duodenal adenomas.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted to identify sporadic duodenal adenoma patients using the databases at one academic center. Colonoscopic findings including histology and location of colorectal cancer neoplasia in sporadic duodenal adenoma patients were compared with a control group of patients without duodenal adenomas who underwent both gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Hundred and two patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas or adenocarcinomas were identified. Colonoscopy was performed in 47 patients (46%), and colorectal neoplasia was present in 22 (46%). There was a significantly higher rate of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma (43%) compared to the control group (24%) odds ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval (1.7-7.4), but not for advanced colorectal adenoma (9 vs. 26%, p = 0.17). Case patients had significantly more right-sided lesions than matched controls (p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with sporadic duodenal adenomas have a significantly higher risk of colorectal neoplasia and proximal location of neoplasia. Therefore, these patients should undergo colonoscopy with particular attention to the right colon.

Duodenal adenomas coincide with colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Small case series have alluded to an association between sporadic duodenal adenomas and colorectal neoplasia. The strength of the association remains uncertain. This case-control study was designed to test this association in a large national pathology database.

METHODS

This study, performed at Miraca Life Sciences, a specialized pathology laboratory that receives gastrointestinal biopsy specimens from outpatient centers throughout the US, included all subjects who underwent a bidirectional endoscopy with biopsy results from both procedures between January 2008 and December 2011. The association between duodenal and colonic neoplasms was investigated using odds ratios (OR) and their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) derived from univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

There were 203,277 patients who underwent bidirectional procedures within the study period (mean age 58 years, 58 % females). Duodenal adenomas were present in 537 patients (median age 65 years, 51 % females; OR for male sex 1.34, 95 % CI 1.13-1.59). Hyperplastic colon polyps were present in 30,205 and colon adenomas in 85,801 patients. Hyperplastic polyps were more common in patients with duodenal adenomas (1.45, 1.07-1.95). Patients with duodenal adenomas also had a significantly greater prevalence of all types of colonic adenomas (2.65, 2.16-3.25), particularly of advanced adenomas (4.30, 3.24-5.70) and colorectal cancer (3.13, 1.38-7.12). Duodenal adenomas were associated with an equally increased risk for left and right colon adenomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with duodenal adenomas harbor an increased risk for any type of colonic neoplasm. This association may provide new insights into the general mechanisms underlying mucosal proliferation in the gastrointestinal tract.

Clinical significance of colonoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal polyps and neoplasms: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some authors have studied the relationship between the presence of polyps, adenomas and cancers of upper gastrointestinal tract (stomach and duodenum) and risk of colorectal polyps and neoplasms; however, the results are controversial, which may be due to study sample size, populations, design, clinical features, and so on. No meta-analysis, which can be generalized to a larger population and could provide a quantitative pooled risk estimate of the relationship, of this issue existed so far.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate risk of colorectal polyps or neoplasms in patients with polyps, adenomas or cancers in upper gastrointestinal tract comparing with controls. A search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, reference lists of potentially relevant papers, and practice guidelines up to 27 November 2013 without languages restriction. Odd ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3 prospective and 21 retrospective case-control studies (n = 37152 participants). The principal findings included: (1) OR for colorectal polyps was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.26) in the gastric polyps group comparing with control groups; (2) Patients with gastric polyps and neoplasms have higher risk (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.06-1.62], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.42-2.09], respectively) of colorectal neoplasms comparing with their controls; and (3) Positive association was found between the presence of colorectal neoplasms and sporadic duodenal neoplasms (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.64-4.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from present meta-analysis of 24 case-control studies suggest that the prevalence of colorectal polyps was higher in patients with gastric polyps than in those without gastric polyps, and the risk of colorectal neoplasms increases significantly in patients with gastric polyps, neoplasms, and duodenal neoplasms. Therefore, screening colonoscopy should be considered for patients with upper gastrointestinal polyps and neoplasms.

Advanced precancerous lesions in the small bowel mucosa

The small intestine has comparatively low rates of epithelial cancers and is, for the most part, inaccessible to ordinary endoscopic visualization. As a result, few solid data are available on the pathological, clinical, and therapeutic aspects of epithelial dysplasia in the small intestine. In this review, we discuss the duodenal adenoma, the most readily visualized dysplastic lesion of the small intestine and the only one that can be detected in an early phase and resected endoscopically before it progresses to high-grade or invasive carcinoma. Particular emphasis is placed on the relationship between duodenal adenoma and colon neoplasia. Because of their different behaviour, detection and management of ampullary adenomas is discussed separately. Even if the absolute risk remains small, the incidence of adenocarcinoma in the small bowel is increased 32-fold in patients with ileal Crohn's disease. Therefore, the follow up and management of these patients is discussed with particular emphasis on the occurrence of dysplasia in the small bowel mucosa of the post-restorative proctocolectomy patients.

Multiple adenomatous duodenal polyposis

Multiple duodenal polyps are a relatively rare finding, usually co-occurrent with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).We report a patient with multiple duodenal adenomas and a negative examination for FAP: multiple flat polyps were detected endoscopically in a 37-year-old male patient, extending from the apex of the bulb to the end of the descending part of the duodenum. In terms of histology, they were tubular adenomas with moderate dysplasia. Colonoscopy and enteroclysis were normal. Both push and capsule enteroscopy only showed multiple polyps in the area of the descending duodenum. DNA analysis of the APC gene was as follows: DGGE, exon 1-15, deletion at codons 1309 and 1061 by means of PCR for attenuated APC were negative. Afterwards we screened the patient for germline MYH mutations using the denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) in combination with sequencing. No novel pathogenic mutation has been identified. Large polyps were removed by means of endoscopic polypectomy and mucosectomy, while small polyps were removed by means of argon plasma coagulation.We conduct yearly checkups, removing only sporadic polyps. The rare finding of duodenal polyposis not co-occurrent with FAP proves that multiple adenomas in the digestive tube need not necessarily co-occur with FAP.

Management of sporadic duodenal adenomas and the association with colorectal neoplasms: a retrospective cohort study

GOALS

To evaluate management, outcome, and follow-up of patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas and assess the presence of colorectal neoplasms.

BACKGROUND

With the widespread use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, an increasing number of sporadic duodenal adenomas are diagnosed. An optimal algorithm for management has not been fully defined. Accumulating data suggest an association with colorectal neoplasms.

STUDY

Patients diagnosed with sporadic duodenal adenomas at our institute from 1986 until 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected from medical records.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (28 men, 52%) were diagnosed with a sporadic duodenal adenoma at a median age of 59 years (range, 27 to 84 y); 33 patients (61%) underwent endoscopic or surgical intervention, 5 (9%) were only followed endoscopically, and 16 (30%) underwent no intervention or follow-up. Complete endoscopic removal was accomplished in at least 81% of cases, and no complications were reported; surgical intervention was complicated in 4 patients, with 1 resulting in death. Adenoma recurrence was 20% at a median follow-up of 18 months (range, 4 to 54 mo), but no carcinoma developed. Colorectal neoplasms were found in 16 of 29 patients (55%) who underwent colonoscopy, including 2 cancers (7%), 7 advanced adenomas (24%), and 7 nonadvanced adenomas (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although no consistent approach to management of sporadic duodenal adenomas was followed, no duodenal carcinoma developed during the follow-up. Endoscopic intervention is preferred over surgical intervention, whenever possible. Once complete removal is ascertained, there is no strict indication for regular follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy, especially in elderly patients or patients with relevant comorbidity. Colonoscopic assessment is warranted in all patients diagnosed with sporadic duodenal adenomas.

Increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in korean patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas: a case-control study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recent data from Western populations have suggested that patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas are at a higher risk for the development of colorectal neoplasia. In this study, we compared the frequency of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas to healthy control subjects.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study used the databases of 3 teaching hospitals in Gyeonggi-do Province, South Korea. The colonoscopy findings of patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were compared with those of age- and gender-matched healthy individuals who had undergone gastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies during general screening examinations.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2008, 45 patients were diagnosed endoscopically with sporadic duodenal adenomas; 26 (58%) of these patients received colonoscopies. Colorectal neoplasia (42% vs 21%; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (19% vs 3%; OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 1.6 to 50.0) were significantly more common in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas than in healthy control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with healthy individuals, patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were at a significantly higher risk for developing colorectal neoplasia. Such at-risk patients should undergo routine screening colonoscopies.