Article

The risk of dysplasia and cancer in the ileal pouch mucosa after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative proctocolitis is low: a long-term term follow-up study.

Colorectal Unit/Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, S-416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Colorectal Disease (Impact Factor: 2.02). 12/2004; 6(6):494-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00716.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Some of the rare complications reported in patients with an ileopouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) after coloectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis are dysplasia and carcinoma. The supposed pathway is for the ileal pouch mucosa to go through adaptational changes then is to progress through the phases of chronic pouchitis, dysplasia and subsequently to adenocarcinoma. In many of these studies however, the dysplasia-cancer sequence is inconclusive since the carcinoma might have developed from the ileal mucosa itself or from residual viable rectal mucosa left behind. The purpose of this study was therefore to study the long-term ileal mucosal adaptation patterns and the incidence and grading of dysplasia in the ileal pouch mucosa in patients previously operated on for ulcerative proctocolitis.
Forty-five patients who had been operated on with an IPAA (25 males/20 females), with a median age of 54 years (range 34-76), were invited for clinical examination and pouch endoscopy including mucosal biopsies. The duration of their colitis until surgery was median 6 years (range 1-28) and the time median interval from start of disease until time of follow up 24.8 years (range 17-46). Three independent pathologists from two different centres reviewed sequential mucosal biopsies taken from separate sites of the pouch for dysplasia and mucosal adaptation patterns.
The type C pattern with a severe inflammation in lamina propria together with severe atrophy of villi, sometimes with ulceration and granulation tissue, was observed by the two pathologists from one centre in 15 of 45 (33.3%) patients and in 11 (24.4%) of 45 by the third pathologist, respectively. As regards dysplasia one pathologist group evaluated 2/45 (4.4%) cases as low-grade dysplasia while the third pathologist considered one of these cases as indefinite for dysplasia and one as reactive. There was in this respect full agreement between the two centres in 43 (95.6%) of 45 cases. Neither high-grade dysplasia nor invasive carcinoma was diagnosed.
Dysplastic transformation within the ileal pouch mucosa in patients operated for ulcerative proctocolitis is rare even after a long follow-up. These results are reassuring for both patients and surgeons. There seem to be no solid grounds to support routine surveillance for dysplasia in the ileal pouch mucosa in these patients. The surveillance for neoplastic changes in the remaining muscular/epithelial cuff is a separate issue however.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
89 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The cost-effectiveness of annual colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether annual colonoscopy among patients with IBD-PSC is cost-effective compared with less frequent intervals from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system. Methods: A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was used to simulate a 35-year-old patient with a 10-year history of well-controlled IBD and a recent diagnosis of concomitant PSC. The following strategies were compared: no surveillance, colonoscopy every 5 years, biennial colonoscopy, and annual colonoscopy. Outcome measures included: costs, number of cases of dysplasia found, number of cancers found and missed, deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost per QALY gained. Results: In the base-case analysis, no surveillance was the least expensive and least effective strategy. Compared with no surveillance, the cost per QALY of surveillance every 5 years was CAD $15,021. The cost per QALY of biennial surveillance compared with surveillance every 5 years was CAD $ 37,522. Annual surveillance was more effective than biennial surveillance, but at an incremental cost of CAD $ 174,650 per QALY gained compared with biennial surveillance. Conclusions: More frequent colonoscopy screening intervals improve effectiveness (i.e., detects more cancers and prevents additional deaths), but at higher cost. Health systems must consider the opportunity costs associated with different surveillance colonoscopy intervals when deciding which strategy to implement among patients with IBD-PSC.
    Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 09/2014; 20(11). DOI:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000181 · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has become the most commonly used procedure for elective treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Since its original description, the procedure has been modified in order to obtain optimal functional results with low morbidity and mortality, and yet provide a cure for the disease. In this review of the literature of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, we discuss these technical modifications, limiting our discussion to the current points of controversy. The current “hot topics” for debate are: indications for ileal pouch-anal or ileo-rectal anastomosis, indications for pouch surgery in the elderly, indeterminate colitis and Crohn's disease, the place of the laparoscopic approach, transanal mucosectomy with hand-sewn anastomosis vs the double-stapled technique, the use of diverting ileostomy and the issue of the best route for delivery of pregnant women. Longer follow-up of patients and increased knowledge and experience with pouch surgery, coupled with ongoing prospective evaluation of the procedure are required to settle these issues.
    09/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jchirv.2014.02.005
  • Source
    Journal of Crohn s and Colitis 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.crohns.2014.08.012 · 3.56 Impact Factor