“High rate of recurrent adenomatosis during endoscopic surveillance after duodenectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis”. Fam Cancer. 2013;12:699-706. [PMID: 23661169 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9648-5]

Outcomes following duodenectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Background and study aims Some patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and extensive duodenal polyposis or cancer require total duodenectomy. Regular postoperative endoscopic surveillance of the remaining jejunum and stomach is recommended, but little is known about the outcomes after this surgery. Patients and methods Patients with FAP who underwent either pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD) were identified at two expert centers. Data about postoperative endoscopic surveillance outcomes were collected, as well as survival outcomes. Results Overall, 119 patients (50% female) underwent duodenectomy (86 PD and 33 PPTD); 100 for benign duodenal polyposis and 19 for duodenal or ampullary cancer. Details of postoperative endoscopic surveillance were available for 88 patients (74%). During a median follow-up of 106 months, 36 patients (41%) were diagnosed with jejunal adenomas after duodenectomy, with a significantly higher proportion in patients who underwent PPTD compared with patients who underwent PD (log-rank, P < 0.01). Two patients developed jejunal cancer (2%). Twenty-six patients (30%) were diagnosed with a total of 66 gastric adenomas, of which 61% were located in the fundus/body and 39% in the antrum. Five patients (6%) developed gastric cancer after a median of 15 years (range 6-23 years), all but one within carpeting fundic gland polyposis. Patients who underwent surgery for cancer had worse survival than patients with benign disease and all but one patient with postoperative gastric/jejunal cancer died. Conclusions After duodenectomy in FAP, a considerable risk of developing adenomas and cancer in the stomach and jejunum exists with poor cancer prognosis, highlighting the need for close postoperative endoscopic surveillance.

Impact of Endoscopic Treatment in Severe Duodenal Polyposis: A National Study in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The majority of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop duodenal adenomas with a risk of progression to duodenal cancer. Endoscopic management of FAP duodenal adenomas has been proposed as a less-invasive option than surgery, but available data still are limited. Our aims were to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic treatment in duodenal polyposis and to evaluate its long-term efficacy in terms of recurrence and malignant degeneration.

METHODS

FAP patients with stage IV duodenal polyposis were enrolled in 5 French centers as part of a national cohort and followed up for a median period of 5.66 years (interquartile range, 6.39 y). Primary outcomes were duodenal surgery-free and cancer-free survival. Two groups of patients were identified according to endoscopic procedures: group 1: resection and or destruction (by argon plasma coagulation) of duodenal polyps, and group 2: papillectomy.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were enrolled (29 men; median age, 44 y). Endoscopic therapy was performed in 37 patients in group 1 and in 19 patients in group 2. Duodenal cancer-free and surgery-free survival were 95.8% at 5 years and 92.6% at 10 years. Four patients required surgery and 2 patients developed cancers. In the 58 patients, the calculated Spigelman score decreased from 9.24 points at entry to 6.35 at 5 years and then plateaued. Complications (mostly bleeding and perforation) occurred in 20 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this long-term cohort follow-up evaluation, endoscopic treatment of patients with severe duodenal polyposis appears relatively safe and effective as an alternative to surgery for the prevention of cancer.

Endoscopic Approach to Duodenal Adenomas in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: A Retrospective Cohort

Introduction

Over 90% of the patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) will develop duodenal adenomas.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic excision of large duodenal adenomas in FAP patients.

Methods

All FAP patients from a familial risk clinic submitted to endoscopic therapy for duodenal adenomas ≥10 mm between January 2010 and February 2021 were included.

Results

From 151 FAP families, 22 patients (50 lesions) were included: 54.5% female; median follow-up 8.5 (IQR: 5.8-12.3) years after the first endoscopy. First therapeutic endoscopy occurred at a median age of 41.0 years (IQR: 33.0-58.2). Repeat therapeutic endoscopy was required in 54.5% of patients. Median size of the largest adenoma was 15 mm (IQR: 10-18 mm); resection was piecemeal in 63.1% and en bloc in the remaining. In 2 cases, the resection was incomplete (fibrosis due to previous resection and difficult positioning). Complications occurred in 6.3% of the resected lesions (4 patients): 2 immediate (bleeding, perforation); 4 in the first week (1 bleeding, 2 mild pancreatitis, 1 perforation requiring surgery; the latter two after ampullectomy). Histology revealed low-grade dysplasia adenomas in 90.1%; no adenocarcinomas were found. One patient with Spigelman stage IV disease not amenable to endoscopic control underwent elective duodenopancreatectomy (without duodenal cancer).

Conclusion

Endoscopic surveillance and treatment of duodenal adenomas in FAP patients was safe and effective in the prevention of duodenal cancer.

Pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy for advanced duodenal polyposis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: short and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), extensive nonmalignant duodenal polyposis not amenable to endoscopic management demands surgical resection for which pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD) offers a pancreatic parenchyma sparing approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent PPTD for FAP. Reconstruction involved a Billroth II anastomosis with a short isolated jejunal limb to facilitate future endoscopic surveillance. Short and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 patients underwent PPTD for Spigelman stage III (n = 6) or IV (n = 24). Sixteen patients experienced a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV) including postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C) in twelve. There was no all cause in-hospital and 90-day mortality. During follow-up (median 125 months), five patients developed acute pancreatitis, one new-onset diabetes and one exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. During endoscopic surveillance in 27 patients, jejunal adenomas were detected in 22 and advanced adenomas in 11. An additional surgical resection was required in four patients with extensive jejunal polyposis. None developed jejunal cancer. The 10-year overall survival rate was 93.3%.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative morbidity after PPTD is substantial but on the long-term, rates of pancreatic insufficiencies are low. Most patients develop jejunal adenomas at follow-up, highlighting the need for endoscopic surveillance.

Endoscopic Management of Ampullary Adenomas in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Syndrome: A Systematic Review with Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy is a viable therapy in ampullary lesions. Prior studies have reported on outcomes of sporadic ampullary lesions, and only small cohort studies have reported outcomes associated with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome.

AIMS

We performed a systematic review with pooled analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EP for treating ampullary adenomas in FAP.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases from inception to May 2020. Studies that included patients with endoscopically resected ampullary lesions and FAP were eligible. The rate of technical success, en bloc resection, piecemeal resection, recurrence, and adverse events was pooled by means of a random-effects model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six studies, including a total of 99 patients, were included in our final analysis. Patient age ranged from 28 to 91 years. Pooled technical success was 90.3% (CI 76.9-96.3%, I² = 31%). Rate of en bloc resection was 60.6% (CI 47.9-72.0%, I² = 0%). Recurrence rate was 25.4% (5.7-65.9%, I² = 82%). The post-procedural pancreatitis rate was 14.7% of which 68% (51 of 75) utilized prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Other adverse events included bleeding (9.2%) and perforation (4%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic papillectomy offers high technical success but remains challenging in patients with FAP, particularly due to high recurrence rates.

Role of endoscopy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary disease that, without intervention, will cause nearly all patients to develop colorectal cancer by the age of 45. However, even after prophylactic colorectal surgery the eventual development of duodenal adenomas leads to an additional risk of duodenal and ampullary cancers. Endoscopy is an essential part of the multidisciplinary management of FAP to aid the early identification or prevention of advanced gastrointestinal malignancy. This review article details the current evidence and consensus guidance available regarding the role of endoscopic surveillance and treatment strategies for FAP.

Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in familial adenomatous polyposis patients after duodenectomy

Objectives

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients with Spigelman stage IV polyposis should be considered for prophylactic duodenectomy. Post‐surgical pancreaticobiliary complications occur and may require management via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to assess the success and adverse events of ERCP in FAP patients after pancreas‐sparing duodenectomy (PSD) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

Methods

A retrospective review of FAP patients who underwent ERCP after PSD or PD from 1992 to 2020 at a quaternary referral center was completed. The technical success of ERCP was defined as the ability to identify the anastomosis and cannulate the duct. Post‐procedural adverse events were defined by bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, or cholangitis. Clinical outcomes included the need for surgical intervention and recurrent pancreatitis after ERCP were assessed.

Results

Of 84 FAP patients with duodenectomy, 12 patients with PSD and two patients with PD underwent 17 ERCPs for pancreatic indications and five for biliary indications. The technical success of ERCP in patients with PSD and a single neoampullary complex for pancreatic (n = 6) and biliary (n = 5) indications was 100% but for those with PD (n = 2) or PSD reconstruction with pancreatic divisum or separate anastomoses (n = 3), it was 0%. Surgical intervention was required in 50% of patients with technically failed ERCP after PSD (2/4) and PD (1/2). There were no adverse events.

Conclusions

ERCP is expected to be therapeutically successful for biliary complications following PSD. Assessment and potential therapy for pancreatitis post‐PSD are best in the setting of a single neo‐ampullary complex rather than in PD or PSD with pancreatic divisum.

Endoscopic management of duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis-A case-based review

Adenomatous polyposis (AP) diseases, including familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated FAP (AFAP), and MUTYH‐associated polyposis (MAP), are the second most common hereditary causes of colorectal cancer. A frequent extra‐colonic manifestation of AP disease is duodenal polyposis, which may lead to duodenal cancer in up to 18% of AP patients. Endoscopic surveillance is recommended at 0.5‐ to 5‐year intervals depending on the extent of polyp growth and histological progression. Although the Spigelman classification is traditionally used to determine surveillance intervals, it lacks information on the (peri‐)ampullary site, where 50% of duodenal carcinomas are located. Hence, information on the papilla has recently been added as a prognostic marker. Patients with duodenal adenoma(s) ≥10 mm and ampullary adenomas of any size are suggested to be referred to an expert center for endoscopic therapy, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic ampullectomy. Nonetheless, despite the logic of this approach, the long‐term efficacy of endoscopic therapy is still to be demonstrated.

Endoscopic management of duodenal adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Almost all patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop duodenal adenomas, with a 4% to 18% risk of progression into duodenal cancer. Prophylactic endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas may prevent cancer and is considered safer than surgical alternatives; however, data are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess safety and effectiveness of endoscopic duodenal interventions in patients with FAP.

METHODS

We performed a historical cohort study including patients with FAP who underwent an endoscopic duodenal intervention between 2002 and 2018. Safety was defined as adverse event rate per intervention and effectiveness as duodenal surgery-free and duodenal cancer-free survival. Change in Spigelman stage was assessed as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

In 68 endoscopy sessions, 139 duodenal polypectomies were performed in 49 patients (20 men; median age, 43). Twenty-nine patients (14 men; median age, 49) underwent a papillectomy. After polypectomy, 9 (13%) bleedings and 1 (2%) perforation occurred, all managed endoscopically. Six (21%) bleedings (endoscopically managed), 4 (14%) cases of pancreatitis, and 1 (3%) perforation (conservatively treated) occurred after papillectomy. Duodenal surgery-free survival was 74% at 89 months after polypectomy and 71% at 71 months after papillectomy; no duodenal cancers were observed. After a median of 18 months (interquartile range, 10-40; range, 3-121) after polypectomy, Spigelman stages were significantly lower (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our FAP patients, prophylactic duodenal polypectomies were relatively safe. Papillectomies showed substantial adverse events, suggesting its benefits and risk should be carefully weighted. Both were effective, however, because surgical interventions were limited and none developed duodenal cancer.

The Prevalence and Significance of Jejunal and Duodenal Bulb Polyposis After Duodenectomy in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence, natural history, and severity of polyposis of the duodenal bulb and jejunum after duodenectomy in patients with FAP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Advanced duodenal polyposis stage in FAP requires consideration of duodenal resection to prevent cancer; pylorus-preserving approach of pancreas-sparing duodenectomy (PSD) is preferred. Post-duodenectomy data indicate polyps occur in the duodenal bulb and the post-anastomotic jejunum, but limited data exists regarding their significance.

METHODS

We identified consecutive FAP patients After duodenal resection, including pancreaticoduodenectomy, PSD, or segmental duodenectomy, at Cleveland Clinic. Medical records were used to determine time to diagnosis of duodenal bulb or jejunal polyps, length of follow up, and severity of polyposis including maximal Spigelman stage (SS) of jejunal polyposis (neo-SS).

RESULTS

64 patients with FAP underwent duodenectomy and endoscopic follow up. 28% underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 61% PSD, and 11% segmental duodenectomy. Postoperatively, 38/64 (59%) were diagnosed with jejunal polyposis, with median time to diagnosis of 55 months and follow up time of 127 months. Jejunal polyposis was advanced in 21% (neo- SS III or IV). Fifty percent were treated endoscopically, 1 patient required surgery. Jejunal polyp-free survival after duodenectomy differed by surgery type (P = 0.008). A total of 55/64 patients underwent a pylorus-preserving procedure, and 6/55 (11%) developed duodenal bulb polyps. All bulb polyps were large (>20 mm) and found after PSD. Endoscopic resection was unsuccessful in 5 patients, but no surgical intervention was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Polyposis occurs in the remaining duodenal and jejunal mucosa in the majority of patients after surgical duodenectomy. Jejunal polyposis is advanced in 1 in 5 patients, but rarely requires surgery. Endoscopic management of jejunal polyposis seems feasible but has proven difficult for duodenal bulb polyps.

Comparison of pancreas-sparing duodenectomy (PSD) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for the management of duodenal polyposis syndromes

BACKGROUND

Familial adenomatous polyposis affects primarily the colon but can also involve other locations within the gastrointestinal tract, including the duodenum. The aim of this study was to describe a single center experience with pancreas-sparing duodenectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis and to compare outcomes with pancreatoduodenectomy performed for duodenal polyp disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who had undergone pancreas-sparing duodenectomy during the period 2001 to 2016. This population was matched 1:1 with a cohort of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenomas, both sporadic and familial, during the same time period. Baseline demographics and perioperative (short- and long-term) outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were included; 44 in each group. The pancreas-sparing duodenectomy cohort was younger (52.6 vs 64.3 years; P < .001) and more patients had undergone prior colectomy (100% vs 32%; P < .001) or additional prior abdominal surgery (27% vs 9% (P < .001). Median operative times were greater for pancreatoduodenectomy (391 vs 460 min; P = .002). There was no difference in any of the early postoperative complications. There was 1 30-day mortality in the pancreatoduodenectomy group secondary to aspiration. Late acute pancreatitis was more common after pancreas-sparing duodenectomy (16% vs 0%; P = .012) and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was more common after pancreatoduodenectomy (30% vs 11%; P = .034).

CONCLUSION

Pancreas-sparing duodenectomy is a reasonable option for duodenal cancer prophylaxis in familial adenomatous polyposis with high-risk features. The perioperative safety profile is comparable to pancreatoduodenectomy done for similar indications, and pancreas-sparing duodenectomy has a favorable long-term with a lesser incidence of exocrine impairment.

Hereditary Colorectal Polyposis and Cancer Syndromes: A Primer on Diagnosis and Management

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer amongst men and women. Between 3 and 6% of all CRCs are attributed to well-defined inherited syndromes, including Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), and several hamartomatous polyposis conditions. Identification of these patients through family history and appropriate genetic testing can provide estimates of cancer risk that inform appropriate cancer screening, surveillance and/or preventative interventions. This narrative review examines the hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes, their genetic basis, clinical management, and evidence supporting cancer screening.

Pancreas-sparing total duodenectomy for Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis associated with familial adenomatous polyposis: experience of 10 cases at a single institution

Duodenal cancer is a leading cause of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). In patients with Spigelman's classification (SC) stage IV duodenal polyposis (DP), careful endoscopic surveillance by specialists or surgical intervention is mandatory. We herein report the surgical and pathological outcomes of FAP patients with SC stage duodenal polyposis undergoing pancreas-sparing total duodenectomy (PSTD), which has been rarely reported but seems optimal in such patients. PSTD and distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I type reconstruction in ten consecutive FAP patients with SC stage IV DP are reported. The median duration of surgery was 396 min (range 314-571 min) and the median estimated blood loss was 480 mL (range 100-975 mL). Significant postoperative complications included wound infection in 1 patient, pancreatic fistula [International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition (ISGPF) grade B] in 4 patients. Histopathologic examinations revealed a well-differentiated carcinoma in situ in 3 patients and others were all adenomas. Over a median follow-up period of 15 months (range 9-29 months), 1 patient developed a stomal ulcer which improved with medical treatment. There were no patients with a body weight loss of ≥10 % relative to the preoperative body weight. No recurrence were experienced during the follow up period. Patients were free from postoperative diabetes mellitus. PSTD is a feasible and acceptable procedure in FAP patients with SC stage IV DP, in terms of surgical, pathological and clinical outcome. However, accumulation of the patients and long-term follow up study is necessary.

Burden and Profile of Somatic Mutation in Duodenal Adenomas from Patients with Familial Adenomatous- and MUTYH-associated Polyposis

Purpose: Duodenal polyposis and cancer are important causes of morbidity and mortality in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP). This study aimed to comprehensively characterize somatic genetic changes in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas to better understand duodenal tumorigenesis in these disorders.Experimental Design: Sixty-nine adenomas were biopsied during endoscopy in 16 FAP and 10 MAP patients with duodenal polyposis. Ten FAP and 10 MAP adenomas and matched blood DNA samples were exome sequenced, 42 further adenomas underwent targeted sequencing, and 47 were studied by array comparative genomic hybridization. Findings in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas were compared with each other and to the reported mutational landscape in FAP and MAP colorectal adenomas.Results: MAP duodenal adenomas had significantly more protein-changing somatic mutations (P = 0.018), truncating mutations (P = 0.006), and copy number variants (P = 0.005) than FAP duodenal adenomas, even though MAP patients had lower Spigelman stage duodenal polyposis. Fifteen genes were significantly recurrently mutated. Targeted sequencing of APC, KRAS, PTCHD2, and PLCL1 identified further mutations in each of these genes in additional duodenal adenomas. In contrast to MAP and FAP colorectal adenomas, neither exome nor targeted sequencing identified WTX mutations (P = 0.0017).Conclusions: The mutational landscapes in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas overlapped with, but had significant differences to those reported in colorectal adenomas. The significantly higher burden of somatic mutations in MAP than FAP duodenal adenomas despite lower Spigelman stage disease could increase cancer risk in the context of apparently less severe benign disease. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6721-32. ©2017 AACR.

Overview of technical solutions and assessment of clinical usefulness of capsule endoscopy

The paper presents an overview of endoscopic capsules with particular emphasis on technical aspects. It indicates common problems in capsule endoscopy such as: (1) limited wireless communication (2) the use of capsule endoscopy in the case of partial patency of the gastrointestinal tract, (3) limited imaging area, (4) external capsule control limitations. It also presents the prospects of capsule endoscopy, the most recent technical solutions for biopsy and the mobility of the capsule in the gastrointestinal tract. The paper shows the possibilities of increasing clinical usefulness of capsule endoscopy resulting from technological limitations. Attention has also been paid to the current role of capsule endoscopy in screening tests and the limitations of its effectiveness. The paper includes the author's recommendations concerning the direction of further research and the possibility of enhancing the scope of capsule endoscopy.

Overview of technical solutions and assessment of clinical usefulness of capsule endoscopy

The paper presents an overview of endoscopic capsules with particular emphasis on technical aspects. It indicates common problems in capsule endoscopy such as: (1) limited wireless communication (2) the use of capsule endoscopy in the case of partial patency of the gastrointestinal tract, (3) limited imaging area, (4) external capsule control limitations. It also presents the prospects of capsule endoscopy, the most recent technical solutions for biopsy and the mobility of the capsule in the gastrointestinal tract. The paper shows the possibilities of increasing clinical usefulness of capsule endoscopy resulting from technological limitations. Attention has also been paid to the current role of capsule endoscopy in screening tests and the limitations of its effectiveness. The paper includes the author's recommendations concerning the direction of further research and the possibility of enhancing the scope of capsule endoscopy.

Endoscopy and EUS are key for effective surveillance and management of duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are prone to developing duodenal adenoma and cancer. Optimal surveillance and management of these adenomas are not well established.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the outcome of FAP patients undergoing intense multimodal surveillance and subsequent endoscopic resection of advanced lesions.

PATIENTS

Eighty consecutive FAP patients enrolled during 2001 to 2011 from the Familial Cancer Clinic of a tertiary hospital as part of routine surveillance.

DESIGN

Case series, prospective in years 2006 to 2011 and retrospective in years 2001 to 2006.

SETTING AND INTERVENTION

Patients were followed by annual forward-view and/or side-view upper endoscopy. A biopsy sample was obtained from visible lesions and normal papillae. Ampullary adenomas were further assessed by EUS to determine dimensions and resectability. Advanced adenomas (size ≥ 10 mm, villous type, high-grade dysplasia) underwent endoscopic ampullectomy or polypectomy and continued surveillance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Detection of advanced adenomas by endoscopy and EUS, endoscopic maintenance of duodenum free of advanced adenoma and cancer.

RESULTS

Patients (38 men and 42 women, mean age 32.68 ± 13.60) were followed 7.2 years and underwent 5.36 diagnostic studies on average. Thirty-eight patients had ampullary adenomas. Advanced adenoma was diagnosed by endoscopy in 10 patients. Importantly, EUS upstaged 9 additional patients to advanced adenoma and downstaged 1, thus altering the treatment course in 36% of patients performing EUS. Endoscopic ampullectomy was performed in 15 patients. Adenoma recurred in 10. Five remained nonadvanced and 5 in advanced stages: 3 were successfully retreated endoscopically and 2 ultimately required surgery for residual adenoma. Advanced nonampullary adenomas were successfully resected endoscopically in 23 patients. No patient had duodenal cancer during the study period.

LIMITATIONS

Limited follow-up period, young age group, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSIONS

In an intense surveillance program for FAP patients, both endoscopy and EUS were key in accurate selection of advanced adenomas for endoscopic resection. During a 10-year period, only 2 patients required elective surgery and no cancer was observed.

Adenomas of the common bile duct in familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or Gardner’s syndrome is often accompanied by adenomas of the stomach and duodenum. We experienced a case of adenomas of the common bile duct in a 40-year-old woman with FAP presenting with acute cholangitis. Only 8 cases of adenomas or adenocarcinoma of the common bile duct have been reported in the literature in patients with FAP or Gardner’s syndrome. Those patients presented with acute cholangitis or pancreatitis. Local excision or Whipple procedure may be the reasonable surgical option.