Microvesicular hyperplastic polyp and sessile serrated lesion of the large intestine: a biological continuum or separate entities?

Bateman, A C; Booth, Adam L.; González, Raúl; Shepherd, Neil A.

doi:10.1136/jcp-2023-208783

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both the MVHP-SSL and GCHP-TSA pathways are potential routes to CRCs within the serrated pathway, and there is a possibility of overlap between them. However, the question of whether MVHPs and SSLs arise independently has not yet been definitively answered ( 12 , 24 ).…”

Section: Serrated Polypsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The histologic features, molecular features, detection and management of serrated polyps: a review

Wang,

Xu,

et al. 2024

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The serrated pathway to colorectal cancers (CRCs) is a significant pathway encompassing five distinct types of lesions, namely hyperplastic polyps (HPs), sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia (SSL-Ds), traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), and serrated adenoma unclassified. In contrast to the conventional adenoma–carcinoma pathway, the serrated pathway primarily involves two mechanisms: BRAF/KRAS mutations and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). HPs are the most prevalent non-malignant lesions, while SSLs play a crucial role as precursors to CRCs, On the other hand, traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) are the least frequently encountered subtype, also serving as precursors to CRCs. It is crucial to differentiate these lesions based on their unique morphological characteristics observed in histology and colonoscopy, as the identification and management of these serrated lesions significantly impact colorectal cancer screening programs. The management of these lesions necessitates the crucial steps of removing premalignant lesions and implementing regular surveillance. This article provides a comprehensive summary of the epidemiology, histologic features, molecular features, and detection methods for various serrated polyps, along with recommendations for their management and surveillance.

show abstract

Section: Serrated Polypsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The histologic features, molecular features, detection and management of serrated polyps: a review

Wang,

Xu,

et al. 2024

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Endoscopic characteristics to differentiate SSLs and microvesicular hyperplastic polyps from goblet cell-rich hyperplastic polyps

Toyoshima,

Nishizawa,

Watanabe

et al. 2024

Endosc Int Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds Among colorectal serrated polyps (SPs), sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) and hyperplastic polyps (HPs) show a similar endoscopic appearance. However, the endoscopic distinctions between the two categories, microvesicular HP (MVHP) and goblet cell-rich HP (GCHP) are not well understood. Therefore, we compared the endoscopic features of SSL, MVHP, and GCHP. Methods This retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. We examined the polyp size, location, Paris classification type, mucus cap, indistinct border, expanded crypt opening, varicose microvascular vessels, and JNET classification type. Multivariable analysis of each endoscopic finding using a binomial logistic regression model determined the factors that predicted SP histology. Results A total of 670 SPs were enrolled in this study, comprising 159 SSLs, 361 MVHPs, and 150 GCHPs. On comparing the SSL + MVHP group and GCHP, a mucus cap (partial regression coefficient 1.705), expanded crypt opening (1.828), and varicose microvascular vessels (1.270) were more often observed in SSL + MVHP group compared with GCHP. In the comparison between MVHP and GCHP, a mucus cap (1.564), expanded crypt opening (1.802), and varicose microvascular vessels (1.288) were more often found in MVHP in contrast to GCHP. When comparing SSL and MVHP, SSLs were more likely to be in the proximal colon (0.662) and were larger (0.198) than MVHPs. No significant differences were observed in other endoscopic findings. Conclusions SSL and MVHP have endoscopic appearances that differ from those of GCHP. Considering MVHP and GCHP as distinct entities may aid in the endoscopic diagnosis of SPs.

show abstract

Microvesicular hyperplastic polyp and sessile serrated lesion of the large intestine: a biological continuum or separate entities?

Cited by 2 publications

References 38 publications

The histologic features, molecular features, detection and management of serrated polyps: a review

The histologic features, molecular features, detection and management of serrated polyps: a review

Endoscopic characteristics to differentiate SSLs and microvesicular hyperplastic polyps from goblet cell-rich hyperplastic polyps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About