Stefan Aretz1. 1. Institut für Humangenetik, Biomedizinisches Zentrum (BMZ), Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Siegmund-Freud-Strasse 25, Bonn, Germany. Stefan.Aretz@uni-bonn.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes account for about 1% of all cases of colorectal cancer and are associated with a broad spectrum of extracolonic tumors. The early detection and accurate classification of these syndromes are essential, since effective methods for surveillance and treatment are available. METHODS: This review article is based on a selective literature search, the author's own work, and evidence-based guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis is initially suspected on the basis of the endoscopic findings and polyp histology. Because different syndromes can resemble each other phenotypically, e.g., autosomal dominant familial adenomatous polyposis and autosomal recessive MUTYH-associated polyposis, molecular genetic studies are important for differential diagnosis and for assessing the risk of recurrence. Identification of the familial mutation in an affected patient is a prerequisite for predictive testing in asymptomatic persons at risk and sometimes enables prognostication. In recent years, the rate of detection of mutations has risen by 10% to 30%, and clinically relevant genotype-phenotype correlations have been described for juvenile polyposis syndrome. Except in cases of mild adenomatous polyposis, phenotypic overlap among the hamartomatous polyposes often causes difficulties in differential diagnosis. Thus, in unclear cases, a pathologist with special expertise in gastrointestinal disorders should be consulted for the evaluation of polyp tissue. Aside from the monogenic polyposes, there are many other types of polyposis that are non-hereditary or of unknown cause, including the hyperplastic and mixed polyposis syndromes. Risk-adapted surveillance programs have been established for the more frequently occurring polyposes.
BACKGROUND:Hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes account for about 1% of all cases of colorectal cancer and are associated with a broad spectrum of extracolonic tumors. The early detection and accurate classification of these syndromes are essential, since effective methods for surveillance and treatment are available. METHODS: This review article is based on a selective literature search, the author's own work, and evidence-based guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis is initially suspected on the basis of the endoscopic findings and polyp histology. Because different syndromes can resemble each other phenotypically, e.g., autosomal dominant familial adenomatous polyposis and autosomal recessive MUTYH-associated polyposis, molecular genetic studies are important for differential diagnosis and for assessing the risk of recurrence. Identification of the familial mutation in an affected patient is a prerequisite for predictive testing in asymptomatic persons at risk and sometimes enables prognostication. In recent years, the rate of detection of mutations has risen by 10% to 30%, and clinically relevant genotype-phenotype correlations have been described for juvenile polyposis syndrome. Except in cases of mild adenomatous polyposis, phenotypic overlap among the hamartomatous polyposes often causes difficulties in differential diagnosis. Thus, in unclear cases, a pathologist with special expertise in gastrointestinal disorders should be consulted for the evaluation of polyp tissue. Aside from the monogenic polyposes, there are many other types of polyposis that are non-hereditary or of unknown cause, including the hyperplastic and mixed polyposis syndromes. Risk-adapted surveillance programs have been established for the more frequently occurring polyposes.
Authors: W Friedl; R Caspari; M Sengteller; S Uhlhaas; C Lamberti; M Jungck; M Kadmon; M Wolf; J Fahnenstich; J Gebert; G Möslein; E Mangold; P Propping Journal: Gut Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Stefan Aretz; Dietlinde Stienen; Siegfried Uhlhaas; Steffan Loff; Walter Back; Constanze Pagenstecher; D Ross McLeod; Gail E Graham; Elisabeth Mangold; René Santer; Peter Propping; Waltraut Friedl Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Nada Al-Tassan; Nikolas H Chmiel; Julie Maynard; Nick Fleming; Alison L Livingston; Geraint T Williams; Angela K Hodges; D Rhodri Davies; Sheila S David; Julian R Sampson; Jeremy P Cheadle Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2002-01-30 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Berton Zbar; W Gregory Alvord; Gladys Glenn; Maria Turner; Christian P Pavlovich; Laura Schmidt; McClellan Walther; Peter Choyke; Gregor Weirich; Stephen M Hewitt; Paul Duray; Fathia Gabril; Cheryl Greenberg; Maria J Merino; Jorge Toro; W Marston Linehan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: H Rothenmund; H Singh; B Candas; B N Chodirker; K Serfas; M Aronson; S Holter; A Volenik; J Green; E Dicks; M O Woods; D Gilchrist; R Gryfe; Z Cohen; W D Foulkes Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Juan M Marqués-Lespier; Marievelisse Soto-Salgado; María González-Pons; Vanessa Méndez; Katerina Freyre; Carlos Beltrán; Luis R Pericchi; Marcia Cruz-Correa Journal: P R Health Sci J Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 0.705
Authors: Joanne Ngeow; Brandie Heald; Lisa A Rybicki; Mohammed S Orloff; Jin Lian Chen; Xiuli Liu; Lisa Yerian; Joseph Willis; Heli J Lehtonen; Rainer Lehtonen; Jessica L Mester; Jessica Moline; Carol A Burke; James Church; Lauri A Aaltonen; Charis Eng Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682