Historical review of Lynch syndrome / Revisão histórica da síndrome de Lynch

Lynch syndrome was formerly known as Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. Currently, these two nomenclatures each have their unique definitions and are no longer used interchangeably. The history of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer was first recognized formally in the literature by Henry Lynch in 1967. With advances of molecular genetics, there has been a transformation from clinical phenotype to genotype diagnostics. This has led to the ability to diagnose affected patients before they manifest with cancer, and therefore allow preventative surveillance strategies. Genotype diagnostics has shown a difference in penetrance of different cancer risks dependent on the gene containing the mutation. Surgery is recommended as prevention for some cancers; for others they are reserved for once cancer is noted. Various surveillance strategies are recommended dependent on the relative risk of cancer and the ability to intervene with surgery to impact on survival. Risk reduction through aspirin has shown some recent promise, and continues to be studied. (AU)

A síndrome de Lynch era anteriormente conhecida como "câncer colorretal hereditário não polipose". Atualmente, essas duas nomenclaturas têm, cada uma, sua própria definição original e já não são empregadas de forma intercambiável. O histórico de câncer colorretal hereditário não polipose foi formalmente reconhecido pela primeira vez na literatura por Henry Lynch em 1967. Com os avanços da genética molecular, verificou-se uma mudança do fenótipo clínico para o diagnóstico genotípico. Esse fato levou à capacidade de diagnosticar pacientes afetados antes que o câncer se manifestasse, e, portanto, à utilização de estratégias preventivas de rastreamento. O diagnóstico genotípico mostrou a diferença na penetrância de diferentes riscos de câncer dependendo do gene que contem a mutação. A cirurgia é recomendada para a prevenção de alguns tipos de câncer; para outros, ela é reservada quando há o aparecimento da doença. Várias estratégias de rastreamento são recomendadas, dependendo do risco relativo de câncer, bem como a capacidade para intervir com a cirurgia objetivando um impacto na sobrevivência. A redução do risco através do uso de aspirina recentemente mostrou ser promissor e continua a ser estudada. (AU)

Comparative effectiveness of i-SCAN™ and high-definition white light characterizing small colonic polyps.

AIM: To evaluate accuracy of in vivo diagnosis of adenomatous vs non-adenomatous polyps using i-SCAN digital chromoendoscopy compared with high-definition white light. METHODS: This is a single-center comparative effectiveness pilot study. Polyps (n = 103) from 75 average-risk adult outpatients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between December 1, 2010 and April 1, 2011 were evaluated by two participating endoscopists in an academic outpatient endoscopy center. Polyps were evaluated both with high-definition white light and with i-SCAN to make an in vivo prediction of adenomatous vs non-adenomatous pathology. We determined diagnostic characteristics of i-SCAN and high-definition white light, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, with regards to identifying adenomatous vs non-adenomatous polyps. Histopathologic diagnosis was the gold standard comparison. RESULTS: One hundred and three small polyps, detected from forty-three patients, were included in the analysis. The average size of the polyps evaluated in the analysis was 3.7 mm (SD 1.3 mm, range 2 mm to 8 mm). Formal histopathology revealed that 54/103 (52.4%) were adenomas, 26/103 (25.2%) were hyperplastic, and 23/103 (22.3%) were other diagnoses include "lymphoid aggregates", "non-specific colitis," and "no pathologic diagnosis." Overall, the combined accuracy of endoscopists for predicting adenomas was identical between i-SCAN (71.8%, 95%CI: 62.1%-80.3%) and high-definition white light (71.8%, 95%CI: 62.1%-80.3%). However, the accuracy of each endoscopist differed substantially, where endoscopist A demonstrated 63.0% overall accuracy (95%CI: 50.9%-74.0%) as compared with endoscopist B demonstrating 93.3% overall accuracy (95%CI: 77.9%-99.2%), irrespective of imaging modality. Neither endoscopist demonstrated a significant learning effect with i-SCAN during the study. Though endoscopist A increased accuracy using i-SCAN from 59% (95%CI: 42.1%-74.4%) in the first half to 67.6% (95%CI: 49.5%-82.6%) in the second half, and endoscopist B decreased accuracy using i-SCAN from 100% (95%CI: 80.5%-100.0%) in the first half to 84.6% (95%CI: 54.6%-98.1%) in the second half, neither of these differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: i-SCAN and high-definition white light had similar efficacy predicting polyp histology. Endoscopist training likely plays a critical role in diagnostic test characteristics and deserves further study.