Advertisement

Sessile Serrated Polyps with Synchronous Conventional Adenomas Increase Risk of Future Advanced Neoplasia

  • Erin SymondsEmail author
  • Shahzaib Anwar
  • Graeme Young
  • Rosie Meng
  • Michelle Coats
  • Kalindra Simpson
  • Peter Bampton
  • Robert Fraser
  • Charles Cock
Original Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Surveillance colonoscopy guidelines following adenomas or sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSPs) are based on pathology features known to be associated with risk of future colorectal cancer. A synchronous conventional adenoma may increase the malignant potential of SSP, but current guidelines do not address this combination of pathologies.

Aims

The aim was to assess the risk of advanced neoplasia after SSP with or without synchronous adenoma compared to that following a conventional adenoma.

Methods

An audit was conducted on colonoscopies performed between 2000 and 2014 as part of a surveillance program. Index colonoscopy findings were classified as: low-risk SSP and high-risk SSP (size ≥ 10 mm or with cytological dysplasia) with and without synchronous adenoma; high-risk adenoma and low-risk adenoma. Risk of advanced neoplasia was determined at subsequent surveillance colonoscopies.

Results

In total, 2157 patients had adenoma or SSP found at index colonoscopy—low-risk adenoma (40%), high-risk adenoma (54%) and SSP (4%). Synchronous adenomas were seen with 47% of SSP. The median follow-up was 50.3 months (interquartile range 28.1–79.3). Compared to an index finding of low-risk adenoma, index findings of high-risk adenoma, as well as SSP with synchronous adenoma, were independent predictors of future advanced neoplasia (high-risk adenoma: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.04 (95% CI 1.70–2.45); high-risk SSP + adenoma HR = 3.20 (95% CI 1.31–7.82); low-risk SSP + adenoma: HR = 2.20 (95% CI 1.03–4.68)).

Conclusions

Synchronous adenoma increases the risk of advanced neoplasia for SSP equivalent to that seen following high-risk adenoma. Guidelines for surveillance should take into account concurrent pathologies with SSP.

Keywords

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSP) Colonoscopy Surveillance Colorectal cancer (CRC) Adenoma 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Author RM was supported by a grant funded by the financial support of Cancer Council SA’s Beat Cancer Project on behalf of its donors and the State Government of South Australia through the Department of Health together with the support of the Flinders Medical Centre Foundation, its donors and partners. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Tony Thomas (TT) for reviewing some of the pathologies.

Funding

Author RM was supported by a grant funded by the financial support of Cancer Council SA’s Beat Cancer Project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2088–2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology. 2007;50:113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosman F, World Health Organization. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh R, Zorron Cheng Tao PuL, Koay D, Burt A. Sessile serrated adenoma/polyps: Where are we at in 2016? World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:7754–7759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45:842–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erichsen R, Baron JA, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ, et al. Increased risk of colorectal cancer development among patients with serrated polyps. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:895–902e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pai RK, Hart J, Noffsinger AE. Sessile serrated adenomas strongly predispose to synchronous serrated polyps in non-syndromic patients. Histopathology. 2010;56:581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vu HT, Lopez R, Bennett A, Burke CA. Individuals with sessile serrated polyps express an aggressive colorectal phenotype. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:1216–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schreiner MA, Weiss DG, Lieberman DA. Proximal and large hyperplastic and nondysplastic serrated polyps detected by colonoscopy are associated with neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:1497–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pereyra L, Zamora R, Gomez EJ, et al. Risk of metachronous advanced neoplastic lesions in patients with sporadic sessile serrated adenomas undergoing colonoscopic surveillance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:871–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bampton PA, Sandford JJ, Young GP. Applying evidence-based guidelines improves use of colonoscopy resources in patients with a moderate risk of colorectal neoplasia. Med J Aust. 2002;176:155–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Symonds EL, Simpson K, Coats M, et al. A nurse-led model maintains high adherence with recall guidelines within a colorectal cancer surveillance program at public academic hospitals. Med J Aust. 2018 (in press).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cancer Council Australia Colonoscopy Surveillance Working Party, Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy—in adenoma follow-up; following curative resection of colorectal cancer; and for cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Vol. Sydney. 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melson J, Ma K, Arshad S, et al. Presence of small sessile serrated polyps increases rate of advanced neoplasia upon surveillance compared with isolated low-risk tubular adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM, et al. Risk of metachronous high-risk adenomas and large serrated polyps in individuals with serrated polyps on index colonoscopy: data from the new hampshire colonoscopy registry. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:117–127e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pai RK, Mackinnon AC, Joseph L, Noffsinger A, Hart J. Identification of histologically distinct conventional adenomas that arise predominately in patients with sessile serrated adenomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Macaron C, Vu HT, Lopez R, Pai RK, Burke CA. Risk of metachronous polyps in individuals with serrated polyps. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:762–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hassan C, Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, et al. Meta-analysis: adherence to colorectal cancer screening and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia, according to the type of screening test. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:929–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahi CJ. How does the serrated polyp pathway alter CRC screening and surveillance? Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:773–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin Symonds
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shahzaib Anwar
    • 3
  • Graeme Young
    • 2
  • Rosie Meng
    • 4
  • Michelle Coats
    • 3
  • Kalindra Simpson
    • 3
  • Peter Bampton
    • 2
  • Robert Fraser
    • 3
  • Charles Cock
    • 3
  1. 1.Bowel Health ServiceFlinders Medical CentreBedford ParkAustralia
  2. 2.Flinders Centre for Innovation in CancerFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyFlinders Medical CentreBedford ParkAustralia
  4. 4.Flinders Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Medicine & Public HealthFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations