The incidence of gastrointestinal pathology and subsequent anemia in young men presenting with iron deficiency without anemia

Prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancy in non-anemic iron deficiency and significance for endoscopic screening: A Western Australian multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is a paucity of evidence regarding non-anemic iron deficiency as a predictor for colorectal cancer and therefore the indication for endoscopic evaluation. This study explores the rates of malignancy in adults with iron deficiency with and without anemia.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter diagnostic cohort study was conducted across two Australian health services. All cases that underwent both esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy between September 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, for the investigation of iron deficiency were included, and the cohort was divided into anemic and non-anemic arms. Multivariate binomial logistic regression was performed to establish clinical characteristics associated with neoplasia.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty-four patients underwent endoscopic evaluation over a 16-month period. There was a significantly higher rate of malignancy in the iron deficiency anemia arm as compared with those without anemia (8.76% vs 1.20%, P < 0.01). Gastrointestinal pathology to account for iron deficiency was identified in > 60% of the total cohort. The presence of anemia (odds ratio [OR] 6.87, P < 0.01) and male gender (OR 3.01, P = 0.01) were significant predictors of malignancy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that anemic iron deficiency confers a significantly greater risk of gastrointestinal cancer compared with non-anemic iron deficiency. Additionally, over 60% of patients had gastrointestinal pathology to account for iron deficiency overall, supporting the need to perform baseline endoscopy in patients with iron deficiency.

Iron Deficiency Anemia in Celiac Disease

The iron absorption process developsmainly in the proximal duodenum. This portion of the intestine is typically destroyed in celiac disease (CD), resulting in a reduction in absorption of iron and subsequent iron deficiency anemia (IDA). In fact, the most frequent extra-intestinal manifestation (EIM) of CD is IDA, with a prevalence between 12 and 82% (in relation with the various reports) in patients with new CD diagnosis. The primary treatment of CD is the gluten-free diet (GFD), which is associated with adequate management of IDA, if present. Iron replacement treatment historically has been based on oral products containing ferrous sulphate (FS). However, the absorption of FS is limited in patients with active CD and unpredictable in patients on a GFD. Furthermore, a poor tolerability of this kind of ferrous is particularly frequent in patients with CD or with other inflammatory bowel diseases. Normalization from anemic state typically occurs after at least 6 months of GFD, but the process can take up to 2 years for iron stores to replenish.

Iron deficiency: a modern primer to diagnosis and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Iron deficiency with anemia (IDA) and without anemia remain a diagnostic and management challenge. Iron deficiency has a broad spectrum of causes, including gastrointestinal malignancy. The purpose of this review is to summarize the value and limitations of current methods to diagnose iron deficiency and underline the relevance of contemporaneous evidence to guide the pretest probability of gastrointestinal disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of biomarkers for iron deficiency exist, and all have their caveats. Serum ferritin remains the most pragmatic means of diagnosing iron deficiency. Hepcidin holds future promise as a marker of iron status during inflammatory states. Men and postmenopausal women with IDA have the highest overall prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancy (∼11%), while premenopausal women with IDA (<1.5%) and those with iron deficiency without anemia (<0.5%) have a very low risk. Noninvasive investigation with fecal immunochemical test and fecal calprotectin hold promise to guide further investigations in lower risk groups.

SUMMARY

Confirmation of iron deficiency remains a challenge. Appropriate risk stratification is the key to guiding judicious gastrointestinal investigation. Use of noninvasive tests may play an important role in lower risk groups. Risk prediction tools applicable to relevant populations are required.

Prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancy in iron deficiency without anaemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency anaemia is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy and is an indication for GI investigations. However, the relevance of iron deficiency without anaemia (IDWA) and the underlying risks of GI malignancy are uncertain. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of GI malignancy in patients with IDWA overall and in clinically relevant subgroups.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported on the prevalence or risk of GI malignancy in patients with confirmed IDWA. We performed a random effects meta-analysis of proportions and assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 1923 citations were screened and 5 studies (4 retrospective cohorts, 1 prospective cohort) comprising 3329 participants with IDWA were included in the meta-analysis. Overall pooled random-effects estimates for prevalence of GI malignancy in those with IDWA were low (0.38%, 95% CI 0.00%-1.84%, I2 = 87.7%). Older patients (2.58%, 95% CI 0.00%-8.77%); non-screening populations (2.45%, 95% CI 0.16%-6.39%) and men and post-menopausal women (0.90%, 95% CI 0.11%-3.23%) with IDWA were at increased risk of GI malignancy compared to younger patients (0.00%, 95% CI 0.00%-0.21%); screened populations (0.24%, 95% CI 0.00%-1.10%) and pre-menopausal women (0.00%, 95% CI 0.00%-1.05%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, IDWA is associated with a low risk of GI malignancy. Older patients and non-screening populations are at elevated risk and require GI investigations. Those not in these subgroups have a lower risk of GI malignancy and may wish to be monitored following discussion of the risk and potential benefits of GI investigations.

Do patients with iron deficiency without anemia benefit from an endoscopic examination?

OBJECTIVE

The need for endoscopic investigation in patients with iron deficiency without anemia (ID) is not established.

METHODS

Data from patients with ID (serum ferritin ≤20 ng/mL, normal hemoglobin) studied with upper and lower endoscopies were retrospectively analyzed. Patients evaluated for iron deficiency anemia (IDA) served as controls, matched by sex and age in the proportion of 2:1. The groups were compared for the presence, type, location and age distribution of endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

Altogether 109 patients (55% women; mean age 59.6 ± 13.5 years; aged <50 years [27.5%]; 50-69 years [43.1%]; ≥70 years [29.4%]) were included in the ID group and 218 matched controls in the IDA group. Lesions were found in a similar proportion of patients (53.2% in the ID group vs 49.1% in the IDA group, P = 0.48) irrespective of age (P = 0.92). The colonoscopy diagnostic yield was low in both the ID and IDA subgroups of aged <50 years (6.3% vs 4.2%, P = 0.76). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant relationship between age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.06) and male sex (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.18-4.39) with a positive colonoscopy. Malignancy was significantly less frequent in the ID group (1.8% vs 14.2%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of gastrointestinal lesions in patients with and without anemia was similar but malignancy was eight times less frequent in the ID group. Systematic endoscopic evaluation in patients with ID is therefore questionable.