4.4 Article

Benign gastric polyps -: Morphological and functional origin

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 48, Issue 7, Pages 1292-1297

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024150924457

Keywords

gastrin; gastritis; Helicobacter pylori; H+; K+-ATPase antibodies; morphology; pepsinogen I; polyps; stomach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The most common types of benign gastric polyps are fundic gland polyps, hyperplastic polyps, and adenomas. The aim of this study was to determine on which morphological and functional background benign gastric polyps develop. The study includes 85 consecutive patients with gastric polyps and sex and age-matched controls without polyps selected at random from a general population sample. The type of polyp was hyperplastic in 52 (61%), fundic gland in 18 (21%), adenoma in 10 (12%), carcinoid in 2 (2%), hamartoma in 2 ( 2%), and inflammatory fibroid in 1 (1%) of the cases. Routine biopsies from the gastric corpus and antrum were examined for presence of gastritis and H. pylori. Blood samples were analyzed for H. pylori antibodies, H+, K+-ATPase antibodies, gastrin, and pepsinogen I. Patients with hyperplastic polyps had increased P-gastrin concentrations and S-H+, K+-ATPase antibody titers and decreased S-pepsinogen I concentrations with a high prevalence of atrophic corpus gastritis or pangastritis. A similar pattern was observed among patients with adenomas, whereas patients with fundic gland polyps had normal serology and a lower prevalence of gastritis and H. pylori infection than controls. In conclusion, hyperplastic polyps and adenomas are generally associated with atrophic gastritis. Patients with fundic gland polyps seem to have a sounder mucosa than controls. Whereas the risk of malignant gastric neoplasia is increased in patients with hyperplastic polyps or adenomas, this does not seem to be the case in patients with fundic gland 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available