Sonographic detection of massive colonic pseudopolyposis in inflammatory bowel diseases

PURPOSE

Colonic pseudopolyps are a frequent finding in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Yet there are no published data describing the characteristics of pseudopolyposis in intestinal ultrasound (IUS). This study aimed at identifying the key features of pseudopolyposis in IUS.

METHODS

This case-control study included 12 patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's colitis with extensive left colon pseudopolyposis and 18 matched IBD patients without pseudopolyps at colonoscopy. Luminal (diameters, thickening, stratification, margins, and vascularity) and intraluminal (vascular signals at color Doppler), and extraluminal (mesenteric fat) parameters of the left colon were compared. Anonymized still images and videos of these patients were blindly reviewed to estimate the accuracy in detecting this condition.

RESULTS

Among the IUS parameters assessed, the anteroposterior diameter ≥ 12 mm and the presence of luminal vascular signals were significantly correlated with pseudopolyposis. The detection of both these findings were able to detect extensive pseudopolyposis a sensitivity of 75% (CI 95%: 42.8-94.5%) and a specificity of 100% (CI 95%: 81.5-100%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study describing the IUS features of pseudopolyposis in IBD. The potential use of IUS to assess pseudopolyposis might have an impact on IUS monitoring and surveillance of IBD patients with condition.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease and post-inflammatory polyps have an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Longstanding intestinal inflammation increases the risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Accurately predicting the risk of colorectal neoplasia in the early stage is still challenging. Therefore, identifying visible warning markers of colorectal neoplasia in IBD patients is the focus of the current research. Post-inflammatory polyps (PIPs) are visible markers of severe inflammation under endoscopy. To date, there is controversy regarding the necessity of strengthened surveillance strategies for IBD patients with PIPs.

AIM

To determine whether IBD patients with PIPs carryan increased risk of colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

Researchers searched the following databases up to July 31, 2021: MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. Cohort and case-control studies that compared the risk of colorectal neoplasia between IBD patients with or without PIPs and published in English or Chinese were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions assessment tool. The outcomes of interest were the rates of various grades of colorectal neoplasia. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Begg’s test and Egger’s test were used to calculate the publication bias. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the results. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 5424 IBD patients (1944 with PIPs vs 3480 without PIPs) were included. The overall bias in each included study ranged from moderate to serious. Compared with nonconcurrent PIPs, patients with PIPs had a higher risk of colorectal neoplasia (RR = 1.74, 95%CI: 1.35-2.24, P < 0.001, I² = 81.4%; aHR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.01-1.70, P = 0.04, I² = 26.2%; aOR = 2.62, 95%CI: 1.77-3.88, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), advanced colorectal neoplasia (RR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.49-2.87, P < 0.001, I² = 77.4%; aHR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.05-2.53, P = 0.03, I² = 10.1%) and colorectal cancer (RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.32-2.82, P = 0.001, I² = 83.0%). Publication bias was not observed in Begg’s test or Egger’s test. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed that the results are robust. The overall quality of evidence was assessed as moderate to low.

CONCLUSION

IBD patients with PIPs may have an increased incidence of colorectal neoplasia.

Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease patients with post-inflammatory polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with post-inflammatory polyps (PIPs) may carry an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) including dysplasia and cancer. Current guidelines recommend active colonoscopy follow-up for these patients. However, the evidence for guidelines is still poor. In addition, some recent high-quality reports present a different view, which challenges the current guidelines. We hypothesize that IBD patients with PIPs are at increased risk of CRN.

AIM

To evaluate the risk of CRN in IBD patients with and without PIPs.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared the risk of CRN in IBD patients with and without PIPs. In addition, we screened the reference lists and citation indices of the included studies. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using the random-effects model to explore the final pooled effect size of the included studies and determine whether PIPs increase the risk of CRN. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessment of publication bias were performed to examine the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twelve studies with 5819 IBD patients, including 1281 (22.01%) with PIPs, were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. We found that IBD patients with PIPs were at an increased risk of CRN as compared to those without PIPs [OR 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43-2.83]. The results were similar when colorectal cancer was used as the study endpoint (OR 2.57; 95%CI: 1.69-3.91). Furthermore, the risk of CRN was still increased (OR 1.80; 95%CI: 1.12-2.91) when restricted to ulcerative colitis patients. Heterogeneity was high among the included studies (I² = 75%). Subgroup analysis revealed that the high heterogeneity was due to the study design. Sensitivity analysis showed that the main statistical outcomes did not essentially change after excluding any one of the included studies. No significant publication bias was found in the funnel plots.

CONCLUSION

IBD patients with PIPs have an increased risk of CRN as compared with those without PIPs, which support the current guidelines. However, a high-quality randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Has the time been reached for pseudopolyps to be re-enrolled in endoscopic inflammatory bowel disease scores?

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) represent heterogeneous groups with different characteristics and different clinical course. A great deal of effort is made to discover proxies for more severe disease needing more intense treatment and early intervention to gain the maximum therapeutic benefit. Endoscopy remains an invaluable method in assessment of patients with IBD. Pseudopolyps are often encountered during endoscopy and, although they are a well described entity, their presence is of unclear importance. In one of our recent studies and in conjunction with one study with a large cohort of patients with IBD and pseudopolyps, patients with pseudopolyps were found to face a higher inflammatory burden in terms of receiving more intense biological treatment. This letter comes as a comment and proposition regarding the concept of re-evaluation of pseudopolyps as a promising marker in IBD scores.

Presence of pseudopolyps in ulcerative colitis is associated with a higher risk for treatment escalation

Background

Pseudopolyps in ulcerative colitis (UC) are considered as indicators of previous episodes of severe inflammation and ulceration of the mucosa. The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients treated for UC, with or without pseudopolyps.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-center study. Consecutive patients with UC and available endoscopic data from 2000 until 2016 were eligible for the study and were followed until June 2017. Patients with incomplete medical/endoscopic charts or interrupted follow up were excluded from the study. Primary outcomes included time to treatment escalation, treatment escalation to biological agents or surgery, and UC-related hospitalization.

Results

Eighty-three UC patients were included in the study, of whom 25 (30%) had pseudopolyps. The median duration of follow up was 2.8 years (interquartile range: 1.1-4.9). Multiple Cox regression analysis identified the presence of pseudopolyps as the only variable independently associated with treatment escalation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-4.3; P=0.014) and escalation to biological agents or surgery (HR 6.3, 95%CI 1.9-20.7; P=0.002).

Conclusion

This retrospective single-center study provides the first preliminary evidence that patients with UC and pseudopolyps may represent a subpopulation with a higher inflammatory burden and a greater need for treatment escalation, including to biological agents or surgery. Large, prospective multicenter studies are certainly warranted to confirm these findings.

Pseudopolyps in inflammatory bowel diseases: Have we learned enough?

Pseudopolyps are a well described entity in the literature and even though the exact pathogenesis of their formation is not completely understood, they are considered non-neoplastic lesions originating from the mucosa after repeated periods of inflammation and ulceration associated with excessive healing processes. Their occurrence is less common in Crohn's disease than in ulcerative colitis, and their overall prevalence ranges from 4% to 74%; moreover, they are found more often in colon but have been detected in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract as well. When their size exceeds the arbitrary point of 1.5 cm, they are classified as giant pseudopolyps. Clinical evaluation should differentiate the pseudopolyps from other polypoid lesions, such as the dysplasia-associated mass or lesion, but this situation represents an ongoing clinical challenge. Pseudopolyps can provoke complications such as bleeding or obstruction, and their management includes medical therapy, endoscopy and surgery; however, no consensus exists about the optimal treatment approach. Patients with pseudopolyps are considered at intermediate risk for colorectal cancer and regular endoscopic monitoring is recommended. Through a review of the literature, we provide here a proposed classification of the characteristics of pseudopolyps.