A104 ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS WITHIN TERTIARY GASTROENTEROLOGY PRACTICES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Adenomatous polyposis (AP) is defined as ≥ 10 cumulative colorectal adenomas. Despite its clinical relevance, its prevalence, genetic implications, and optimal management remains unknown. Aims Evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of AP within a tertiary gastroenterology referral center. Methods Patients with at least 1 adenomatous colorectal polyp removed by 1 of 11 gastroenterologists at a tertiary referral center between 2013-2023 were screened for AP using a validated histopathology database. Patients with a known adenomatous polyposis syndrome and/or previous colorectal surgery prior to referral were excluded from analysis. All patients with AP (defined as ≥ 10 adenomatous colorectal polyps) underwent full chart review. Data were extracted for demographic and clinical outcomes. Results Of 10,603 patients with at least 1 colorectal adenoma, 330 (3.1%) were diagnosed with AP. AP patients were diagnosed over a median of 5 years (IQR 1-9 years) and a median of 3 colonoscopies (IQR 2-4 colonoscopies). The frequencies of an advanced adenoma and colorectal cancer (CRC) were 236 (71.5%) and 23 (7.0%), respectively. 78.2% of CRC diagnosed before or concurrent to AP diagnosis. Genetic analysis was completed in 22 (6.8%) patients, with a deleterious mutation found in 10 (45.4%). 276 (83.6%) patients were managed endoscopically with 24 (7.3%) referred to surgery and 30 (9.1%) discharged due to age. 300 (90.9%) patients had 10-20 adenomas and 30 (9.1%) patients had > 20 adenomas. Patients with > 20 adenomas were more commonly referred to surgery (6, 20% vs. 18, 6%; p = 0.014). There was no difference in the frequency of CRC between groups (21, 7.0% in 10-20 adenomas and 2, 6.7% in >20 adenomas; p=0.195). Conclusions In patients with ≥ 1 colorectal adenoma, the prevalence of AP was 3.1%, with an overall CRC risk of 7.0%. The majority of patients can be successfully managed endoscopically with further evidence needed to delineate appropriate surveillance interval recommendations. Funding Agencies CAG

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.