{rfName}

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

1

Altmetrics

Grant support

Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI19/01050) and Beca de la Marato de TV3 2020 (Beca la Marato-201932-30). Co-funded by European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund; "A way to make Europe"/"Investing in your future". CIBERehd is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Analysis of institutional authors

Rivero Sanchez, LisethAuthorBravo, RaquelAuthorBalaguer, FrancescAuthorPellise, MariaCorresponding Author
Share
Publications
>
Review

Endoscopic management of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis after prophylactic colectomy or restorative proctocolectomy - systematic review of the literature

Publicated to:Radiology And Oncology. 58 (2): 153-169 - 2024-06-01 58(2), DOI: 10.2478/raon-2024-0029

Authors: Gavric, Aleksandar; Rivero Sanchez, Liseth; Brunori, Angelo; Bravo, Raquel; Balaguer, Francesc; Pellise, Maria

Affiliations

Ctr Biomed Res Hepat & Digest Dis Network CIBEReh, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Hosp Clin Barcelona, Dept Gastroenterol, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Hosp Clin Barcelona, Dept Surg, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Inst Invest Biomed August Pi & Sunyer IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Univ Med Ctr Ljubljana, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Ljubljana, Slovenia - Author
See more

Abstract

Background. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop early colorectal adenomas and if left untreated, progression to cancer is an inevitable event. Prophylactic surgery does not prevent further development of cancer in the rectal remnant, rectal cuff in patients with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and even on the ileal mucosa of the pouch body. The aim of this review is to assess long-term rates of cancer and adenoma development in patients with FAP after prophylactic surgery and to summarise current recommendations for endoscopic management and surveillance of these patients. Materials and methods. A systematic literature search of studies from January 1946 through to June 2023 was conducted using the PRISMA checklist. The electronic database PubMed was searched. Results. Fifty-four papers involving 5010 patients were reviewed. Cancer rate in the rectal remnant was 8.8-16.7% in the western population and 37% in the eastern population. The cumulative risk of cancer 30 years after surgery was 24%. Mortality due to cancer in the rectal remnant is 1.1-11.1% with a 5-year survival rate of 55%. The adenoma rate after primary IPAA was 9.4-85% with a cumulative risk of 85% 20 years after surgery and a cumulative risk of 12% for advanced adenomas 10 years after surgery. Cumulative risk for adenomas after ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) was 85% after 5 and 100% after 10 years. Adenomas developed more frequently after stapled (33.9-57%) compared to hand-sewn (0-33%) anastomosis. We identified reports of 45 cancers in patients after IPAA of which 30 were in the pouch body and 15 in the rectal cuff or at the anastomosis. Conclusions. There was a significant incidence of cancer and adenomas in the rectal remnant and ileal pouch of FAP patients during the long-term follow-up. Regular endoscopic surveillance is recommended, not only in IRA patients, but also in pouch patients after proctocolectomy.

Keywords
AdenomaAdenomatous polyposis coliAdverse eventArticleCancer preventionCancer riskClinical effectivenessColectomyColon polyposisColorectal neoplasmsColorectal tumorEndoscopic surgeryFamilial adenomatous polyposisHigh risk populationHumanHumansIleal pouchIleal pouch-anal anastomosiIleal pouch-anal anastomosisIleoanal anastomosisIleorectal anastomosisMortality rateOutcome assessmentPouch-anal anastomosisPredictive valueProceduresProctocolectomyProctocolectomy, restorativeProphylactic surgical procedureProphylactic surgical proceduresRectal-cancerRectum adenomaRectum cancerRisk assessmentRisk factorRisk reductionRisk-factorsSecondary proctectomSubmucosal dissectionSurgerySurgical techniqueSurgical-treatmentSurvival analysisSurvival rateSurvival timeSystematic reviewTransitional zone

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Radiology And Oncology due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2024 there are still no calculated indicators, but in 2023, it was in position 215/322, thus managing to position itself as a Q2 (Segundo Cuartil), in the category Oncology. Notably, the journal is positioned en el Cuartil Q2 para la agencia Scopus (SJR) en la categoría Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging.

Independientemente del impacto esperado determinado por el canal de difusión, es importante destacar el impacto real observado de la propia aportación.

Según las diferentes agencias de indexación, el número de citas acumuladas por esta publicación hasta la fecha 2025-04-29:

  • Scopus: 1
Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-04-29:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 3.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 3 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 3.7.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 4 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.
Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: Slovenia.

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: Last Author (Pellisé Urquiza, Maria).

the author responsible for correspondence tasks has been Pellisé Urquiza, Maria.