Abstract
PURPOSE: Inflammatory bowel disease surveillance strategies are designed to identify patients at greater than average risk for the development of invasive colonic carcinoma. Colonoscopic detection of mucosal dysplasia is considered the best available surveillance tool. However, the usefulness of dysplasia as a marker for cancer is uncertain. Furthermore, when dysplasia is found some suggest immediate colectomy, whereas others opt for continued surveillance. The aim of this study is to determine whether an association between dysplasia grade and cancer exists in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis, to ascertain the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of dysplasia as a cancer marker, and to clarify what action to take once dysplasia is discovered. METHODS: The pathology reports of 590 patients who underwent total proctocolectomy or restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis were reviewed for dysplasia, grade of dysplasia, presence of carcinoma, and tumor stage. One hundred sixty of these patients had undergone colonoscopic examination within the year before surgery. Findings from these studies were also reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-seven specimens (13.1 percent) contained at least one focus of dysplasia. Invasive cancers were found in 38 specimens (6.4 percent). Cancers were significantly more common among specimens with dysplastic changes (33/77vs. 5/513;P<0.001). Specimens with dysplasia of any grade were 36 times more likely to harbor invasive carcinoma. Stage III disease was found in association with indefinite or low-grade dysplasia in 5 of 26 (19.2 percent) of cases. Tumor stage did not correlate with dysplasia grade. Preoperative colonoscopy identified neoplastic changes in 57 (69.5 percent) cases. Dysplasia, cancer or both were missed in 25 cases. Lesions were correctly identified in only 31 (39.7 percent) of cases. Colonoscopically diagnosed dysplasia as a marker for synchronous cancer had a sensitivity of 81 percent and a specificity of 79 percent. The positive predictive value of a finding of preoperative dysplasia of any grade was 50 percent. The positive predictive value of a finding of low-grade dysplasia was 70 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Dysplasia is an unreliable marker for the detection of synchronous carcinoma. However, when dysplasia of any grade is discovered at colonoscopy, the probability of a coexistent carcinoma is relatively high. Colonoscopic evidence of low-grade dysplasia has a higher positive predictive value than either dysplasia associated mass or lesion or high-grade dysplasia. Dysplasia grade does not predict tumor stage. Because advanced cancer can be found in association with dysplastic changes of any grade, confirmed dysplasia of any grade is an indication for colectomy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, Adami HO. Ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. A population-based study. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1228–33.
Warren S, Sommers SC. Pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis. Am J Surg 1949;25:657–80.
Bernstein CN, Shanahan F, Weinstein WM. Are we telling patients the truth about surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis? Lancet 1994;343:71–4.
Riddell RH, Goldman H, Ransohoff DF,et al. Dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: standardized classification with provisional clinical applications. Hum Pathol 1983;14:931–68.
Blackstone MO, Riddell RH, Rogers BH, Levin B. Dysplasia-associated lesion or mass (DALM) detected by colonoscopy in long-standing ulcerative colitis: an indication for colectomy. Gastroenterology 1981;80:366–4.
Greenstein AJ, Sachar DB, Smith H,et al. Cancer in universal and left-sided ulcerative colitis: factors determining risk. Gastroenterology 1979;77:290–4.
Dickinson RJ, Dixon MF, Axon AT. Colonoscopy and the detection of dysplasia in patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis. Lancet 1980;2:620–2.
Axon AT. Cancer surveillance in ulcerative colitis—a time for reappraisal. Gut 1994;35:587–9.
Lynch DA, Lobo AJ, Sobala GM, Dixon MF, Axon AT. Failure of colonoscopic surveillance in ulcerative colitis. Gut 1993;34:1075–80.
Riddell RH. How reliable/valid is dysplasia in identifying at-risk patients with ulcerative colitis? J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:314–317.
Bernstein CN, Weinstein WM, Levine DS, Shanahan F. Physicians' perceptions of dysplasia and approaches to surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:2106–14.
Taylor BA, Pemberton JH, Carpenter HA,et al. Dysplasia in chronic ulcerative colitis: implications for colonoscopic surveillance. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:950–6.
Ransohoff DF, Riddell RH, Levin B. Ulcerative colitis and colonic cancer. Problems in assessing the diagnostic usefulness of mucosal dysplasia. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:383–8.
Connell WR, Lennard-Jones JE, Williams CB, Talbot IC, Price AB, Wilkinson KH. Factors affecting the outcome of endoscopic surveillance for cancer in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 1994;107:934–44.
Woolrich AJ, DaSilva MD, Korelitz BI. Surveillance in the routine management of ulcerative colitis: the predictive value of low-grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology 1992;103:431–8.
Bernstein CN. How do we assess the value of surveillance techniques in ulcerative colitis? J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:318–21.
Leidenius M, Kellokumpu I, Husa A, Riihela M, Sipponen P. Dysplasia and carcinoma in longstanding ulcerative colitis: an endoscopic and histological surveillance programme. Gut 1991;32:1521–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Read at The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' 100th Anniversary and Tripartite Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1 to 6, 1999.
About this article
Cite this article
Gorfine, S.R., Bauer, J.J., Harris, M.T. et al. Dysplasia complicating chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 1575–1581 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236742
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236742