4.5 Article

Inflammatory bowel disease in a colorectal cancer screening population: Diagnosis and follow-up

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 587-591

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.07.036

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel disease; Screening; Diagnosis; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IBD prevalence in asymptomatic adults is low, with majority having mild disease, though some may require biologic therapy.
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is usually diagnosed in subjects with gastrointestinal symptoms, but may also be asymptomatic and diagnosed incidentally. Aims: to determine the prevalence of IBD in asymptomatic adults. Methods: we identified subjects who underwent colonoscopy between 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2019 in a regional colorectal cancer screening program with endoscopic findings suggestive of IBD, and retrieved their clinical, histological and therapeutic information. Results: 5116 subjects underwent colonoscopy, and 4640 persons were considered assessable. Of these, 54 (1.16%) had endoscopic findings suggestive of IBD, including 40 of Crohn?s disease (CD) and 14 of ulcerative colitis (UC). A definite diagnosis of IBD was made in 19 patients, for an overall IBD prevalence of 0.41%, with 13 cases of CD (0.28%) and 6 of UC (0.13%). The mean follow-up was 26.8 months after the first colonoscopy. Therapy was started in 5 of 13 CD patients and all UC patients. Conclusion: Endoscopic findings suggestive of IBD are not infrequent in an asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening population. Visualization of the terminal ileum is recommended in this setting. A definite diagnosis of IBD was made in about 1 out of 3 subjects with endoscopic lesions. Most IBD patients had a mild form of disease, but some needed biologic therapy. ? 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available