Jimmy K Limdi1, Francis A Farraye2. 1. Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Section of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. jimmy.limdi@nhs.net. 2. Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis have an increased risk for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colitis-related dysplasia appears to confer the greatest risk. Colonoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia has been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. The aim of surveillance is the reduction of mortality and morbidity of CRC through detection and resection of dysplasia or detecting CRC at an earlier and potentially curable stage. Traditional surveillance has relied on mucosal assessment with targeted biopsy of visible lesions and random biopsy sampling on the premise that dysplasia was not visible at endoscopy. Advances in optical technology permitting increased detection of dysplasia and evidence that most dysplasia is visible has had practice-changing implications. RECENT FINDINGS: Emerging evidence favours chromoendoscopy (CE) for dysplasia detection and is gaining wider acceptance through recent international (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SCENIC)) recommendations and endorsed by many gastrointestinal societies. Adoption of CE as the gold standard of surveillance has been met with by scepticism, from conflicting data, operational barriers and the need to understand the true impact of increasingly higher dysplasia detection on overall CRC mortality. Valid debate notwithstanding, implementation of a risk stratification protocol that includes CE is an effective approach allowing earlier detection of dysplasia and colorectal neoplasia, determination of surveillance intervals with appropriate allocation of resources and limiting morbidity from CRC and colonoscopy itself. Further prospective data should define the true and long-term impact of dysplasia detection with modern techniques.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis have an increased risk for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colitis-related dysplasia appears to confer the greatest risk. Colonoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia has been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. The aim of surveillance is the reduction of mortality and morbidity of CRC through detection and resection of dysplasia or detecting CRC at an earlier and potentially curable stage. Traditional surveillance has relied on mucosal assessment with targeted biopsy of visible lesions and random biopsy sampling on the premise that dysplasia was not visible at endoscopy. Advances in optical technology permitting increased detection of dysplasia and evidence that most dysplasia is visible has had practice-changing implications. RECENT FINDINGS: Emerging evidence favours chromoendoscopy (CE) for dysplasia detection and is gaining wider acceptance through recent international (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SCENIC)) recommendations and endorsed by many gastrointestinal societies. Adoption of CE as the gold standard of surveillance has been met with by scepticism, from conflicting data, operational barriers and the need to understand the true impact of increasingly higher dysplasia detection on overall CRC mortality. Valid debate notwithstanding, implementation of a risk stratification protocol that includes CE is an effective approach allowing earlier detection of dysplasia and colorectal neoplasia, determination of surveillance intervals with appropriate allocation of resources and limiting morbidity from CRC and colonoscopy itself. Further prospective data should define the true and long-term impact of dysplasia detection with modern techniques.
Authors: Antonio Rispo; Fabiana Castiglione; Stefania Staibano; Dario Esposito; Francesco Maione; Maria Siano; Francesca Salvatori; Stefania Masone; Marcello Persico; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-09-16
Authors: Andrea Iannone; Marinella Ruospo; Germaine Wong; Mariabeatrice Principi; Michele Barone; Giovanni F M Strippoli; Alfredo Di Leo Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Frank J C van den Broek; Pieter C F Stokkers; Johannes B Reitsma; Robin P B Boltjes; Cyriel Y Ponsioen; Paul Fockens; Evelien Dekker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Martin Goetz; Katharina Lammersdorf; Constantin Schneider; Juergen Burg; Manfred Stolte; Michael Vieth; Bernhard Nafe; Peter R Galle; Markus F Neurath Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ludger Leifeld; Gerhard Rogler; Andreas Stallmach; Carsten Schmidt; Ina Zuber-Jerger; Franz Hartmann; Mathias Plauth; Attyla Drabik; Ferdinand Hofstädter; Hans Peter Dienes; Wolfgang Kruis Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Matthew Rutter; Brian Saunders; Kay Wilkinson; Steve Rumbles; Gillian Schofield; Michael Kamm; Christopher Williams; Ashley Price; Ian Talbot; Alastair Forbes Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: K Hata; T Watanabe; S Kazama; K Suzuki; M Shinozaki; T Yokoyama; K Matsuda; T Muto; H Nagawa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Maryam Alkhatry; Ahmad Al-Rifai; Vito Annese; Filippos Georgopoulos; Ahmad N Jazzar; Ahmed M Khassouan; Zaher Koutoubi; Rahul Nathwani; Mazen S Taha; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742