Giulia Martina Cavestro

Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal cancers, but the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) and duodenal cancer (DC), and the clinical impact of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance, remain uncertain. We aimed to estimate GC and DC incidence in LS and to assess the association of EGD surveillance with cancer risk. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to Jan 15, 2026 for cohort studies and clinical trials reporting GC or DC incidence in genetically confirmed LS. We pooled incidence rates (IR) per 1,000 person-years (p-y), overall and by mismatch repair (MMR) gene, and pooled relative risks (RR) for EGD surveillance versus no surveillance. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251056416). Findings: We included 35 studies comprising 33,530 patients (47·2% male). Pooled IRs per 1,000 p-y were 0·95 (95% CI 0·54–1·36) for GC and 1·92 (0·75–3·10) for DC. By genotype, GC incidence was highest in MSH2 carriers (1·27 [0·74–1·80]) and very low in MSH6 carriers (0·03 [0–0·19]). EGD surveillance was associated with lower GC risk (RR 0·31, 0·14–0·69), but not with a statistically significant reduction in DC risk (RR 0·78, 0·35–1·74). Interpretation: LS confers an increased incidence of upper gastrointestinal cancers, with marked variation by MMR gene. Observational evidence suggests EGD surveillance may be associated with lower GC risk, supporting risk-adapted management and the need for higher-quality comparative studies.

Background. The large number of lesions detected via high-definition (HD) imaging during colonoscopy calls for the reliable real-time histological characterization of polyps, especially diminutive and small ones, to permit tailored management based on the neoplastic risk, such as a “resect-and-discard” or a “diagnose-and-leave” strategy for low-risk adenomas and hyperplastic polyps (HPs). The Kudo classification of glandular pit pattern is currently used for predicting polyp histology. Aim. The aim in this study was to assess whether Kudo’s glandular pit pattern, assessed via HD digital chromoendoscopy (i-Scan) without magnification and optical enhancement, reliably predicts polyp histology and differentiates neoplastic lesions (NLs) from non-neoplastic lesions (non-NLs) during routine colonoscopy. Methods. Consecutive colorectal lesions recorded in a database over 12 months, with Kudo’s glandular pit pattern classification, were retrospectively compared with histology. The diagnostic accuracy and negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology of Kudo’s pit patterns were assessed separately for diminutive (≤5 mm) and small (6–9 mm) polyps, accordingly to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations (PIVI), and in large (≥10 mm) lesions. Results. A total of 2230 lesions were recorded: 898 diminutive, 704 small, and 628 large. Kudo’s type II pit pattern was prevalent in diminutive polyps and recognized mostly in HPs (83.27%); it was also found in 38.8% of adenomas. In the right colon, Kudo’s type II pit pattern was prevalent in adenomas (70.04% vs. 20.74% in HPs); among the serrated lesions, it was evenly distributed between HPs and adenomas. Kudo’s type IIIL/IIIs/IV pit pattern was prevalent in NLs (61% vs. 8.37% of non-NLs) in diminutive polyps, evenly distributed between non-NLs and NLs in small polyps, and found only in NLs in large polyps. Kudo’s type Vi/Vn pit pattern correctly identified all but one adenocarcinoma. The NPV for adenomatous histology did not reach the recommended 90% PIVI threshold for differentiation between NLs and non-NLs in diminutive polyps showing Kudo’s type II pit pattern and in small polyps showing type IIIL/IIIs/IV pit pattern. Conclusions. Kudo’s pit pattern classification carried out with digital chromoendoscopy (i-Scan) during routine colonoscopy does not allow the reliable differentiation between non-NLs and NLs in diminutive and small polyps, so a “diagnose-and-leave” strategy for diminutive polyps may leave undetected adenomas, while a “resect-and-discard” strategy could miss lesions requiring closer follow-up.

Hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes, including familial adenomatous polyposis and other rare adenomatous polyposis syndromes, increase the lifetime risk of colorectal and other cancers. A team of 38 experts convened to update the 2008 European recommendations for the clinical management of patients with adenomatous polyposis syndromes. Additionally, other rare monogenic adenomatous polyposis syndromes were reviewed and added. Eighty-nine clinically relevant questions were answered after a systematic review of the existing literature with grading of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Two levels of consensus were identified: consensus threshold (≥67% of voting guideline committee members voting either ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ during the Delphi rounds) and high threshold (consensus ≥ 80%). One hundred and forty statements reached a high level of consensus concerning the management of hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes. These updated guidelines provide current, comprehensive, and evidence-based practical recommendations for the management of surveillance and treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis patients, encompassing additionally MUTYH-associated polyposis, gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach and other recently identified polyposis syndromes based on pathogenic variants in other genes than APC or MUTYH. Due to the rarity of these diseases, patients should be managed at specialized centres.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have an almost 20% lifetime risk of duodenal adenocarcinoma, currently the leading cause of death in FAP. The Spigelman staging system provides guidance on the surveillance intervals and timing of prophylactic surgery. Still, its accuracy in predicting duodenal and papillary cancer development has not been systematically evaluated. We investigated the sensitivity and cancer risk of the Spigelman stages. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane and used a random-effects model to pool effect sizes. RESULTS: After removing duplicate entries, we screened 1,170 records and included 27 studies for quantitative analysis. Once duodenal polyposis reaches Spigelman stage IV, the risk of duodenal and papillary cancers increased to 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12%–45%). However, the sensitivity of Spigelman stage IV for these cancers was low (51%, 95% CI 42%–60%), especially for papillary adenocarcinoma (39%, 95% CI 16%–68%). We investigated the reasons behind these low values and observed that duodenal cancer risk factors included polyps >10 mm, polyp count >20, and polyps with high-grade dysplasia. Risk factors associated with papillary cancer included a papilla with high-grade dysplasia or >10 mm. The evidence on other risk factors was inconclusive. DISCUSSION: The current Spigelman staging system had a low sensitivity for duodenal and papillary adenocarcinomas. Two Spigelman variables (duodenal villous histology and polyp count) and the lack of papilla-specific variables likely contributed to the low sensitivity values for duodenal and papillary cancers, respectively. While clinicians may be familiar with its current form, there is an urgent need to update it.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance of high-risk individuals (HRI) is becoming more common worldwide, aiming at anticipating PC diagnosis at a preclinical stage. In 2015, the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer was created. We aimed to assess the prevalence and incidence of pancreatic findings, oncological outcomes, and harms 7 years after the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer inception, focusing on individuals with at least a 3-year follow-up or developing events before. METHODS: HRI (subjects with a family history or mutation carriers with/without a family history were enrolled in 18 centers). They underwent annual magnetic resonance with cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound (NCT04095195). RESULTS: During the study period (June 2015–September 2022), 679 individuals were enrolled. Of these, 524 (77.2%) underwent at least baseline imaging, and 156 (29.8%) with at least a 3-year follow-up or pancreatic malignancy/premalignancy-related events, and represented the study population. The median age was 51 (interquartile range 16) years. Familial PC cases accounted for 81.4% of HRI and individuals with pathogenic variant for 18.6%. Malignant (n = 8) and premalignant (1 PanIN3) lesions were found in 9 individuals. Five of these 8 cases occurred in pathogenic variant carriers, 4 in familial PC cases (2 tested negative at germline testing and 2 others were not tested). Three of the 8 PC were stage I. Five of the 8 PC were resectable, 3 Stage I, all advanced cases being prevalent. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative hazard of PC was 1.7%, 2.5%, and 3%, respectively. Median overall and disease-free survival of patients with resected PC were 18 and 12 months (95% CI not computable). Considering HRI who underwent baseline imaging, 6 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (1 resected) and 1 low-yield surgery (low-grade mixed-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm) were also reported. DISCUSSION: PC surveillance in a fully public health care system is feasible and safe, and leads to early PC or premalignant lesions diagnoses, mostly at baseline but also over time.

Bariatric surgery is associated with a postoperative reduction of 25(OH) vitamin D levels (25(OH)D) and with skeletal complications. Currently, guidelines for 25(OH)D assessment and vitamin D supplementation in bariatric patients, pre- and post-surgery, are still lacking. The aim of this work is to analyse systematically the published experience on 25(OH)D status and vitamin D supplementation, pre- and post-surgery, and to propose, on this basis, recommendations for management. Preoperatively, 18 studies including 2,869 patients were evaluated. Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D < 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) was 85%, whereas when defined by 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) was 57%. The median preoperative 25(OH)D level was 19.75 ng/mL. After surgery, 39 studies including 5,296 patients were analysed and among those undergoing either malabsorptive or restrictive procedures, a lower rate of vitamin D insufficiency and higher 25(OH)D levels postoperatively were observed in patients treated with high-dose oral vitamin D supplementation, defined as ≥ 2,000 IU/daily (mostly D3-formulation), compared with low-doses (< 2,000 IU/daily). Our recommendations based on this systematic review and meta-analysis should help clinical practice in the assessment and management of vitamin D status before and after bariatric surgery. Assessment of vitamin D should be performed pre- and postoperatively in all patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Regardless of the type of procedure, high-dose supplementation is recommended in patients after bariatric surgery.