4.3 Article

Sporadic Fundic Gland Polyps With Low-Grade Dysplasia A Large Case Series Evaluating Pathologic and Immunohistochemical Findings and Clinical Behavior

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 144, Issue 4, Pages 592-600

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPGK8QTYPUQJYL

Keywords

Sporadic fundic gland polyp with dysplasia; Fundic gland polyp; Proton pump inhibitor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Fundic gland polyps (FGPs) occur in two clinical settings, sporadic and syndromic. Epithelial dysplasia is rare in sporadic FGPs, and progression data from large series are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, morphologic, and immunohistochemical features in a large series of sporadic FGPs with epithelial dysplasia. Methods: We studied 85 patients with FGPs with low-grade dysplasia (FGPD), including 62 patients with sporadic and 23 with syndromic FGPDs. Results: Sixty-two patients with sporadic FGPD comprised 29 men and 33 women with a median age of 56 years. The indications for endoscopy were heartburn and follow-up of Barrett esophagus, and 49 patients had a history of proton pump inhibitor use. Morphologically, sporadic and syndromic FGPDs were similar. Immunohistochemical staining for p53 was normal (weak 1+) in all polyps, Ki-67 immunohistochemistry showed staining in the mucus neck and surface epithelium, and nuclear accumulation of beta-catenin was observed in 9 of 40 sporadic FGPDs. Twenty-six (42%) patients with sporadic FGPDs had follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopies with biopsies after a mean period of 14.8 months (nine with more than one follow-up): nine (35%) had no additional polyps, 13 (50%) had nondysplastic sporadic FGPs, and four (15%) had sporadic FGPDs. Conclusions: Sporadic FGPDs were seen primarily in middle-aged patients with gastroesophageal reflux. Follow-up data support the indolent nature of these polyps.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available