Study and Patient Selection and Characteristics
Only unequivocal de novo carcinoma of the cuff or ileal pouch was included in the present analysis. The initial search yielded 1346 studies. Of these, 1204 did not fit to inclusion criteria. The full texts of 142 articles were read. Articles only dealing with dysplasia and routine surveillance, without mention of carcinoma, were excluded. Studies reporting on patients receiving IPAA subsequently diagnosed with Crohn's disease or for indeterminate colitis were excluded. Four articles only reporting on squamocellular carcinoma (SCC),12,29,45,46 1 on pouch lymphoma,16 and 1 on pouch carcinoid53 were excluded from evaluation. Data from one study13 were replicated in another one,44 and hence, the former was removed. Another article was removed35 because the authors performed an inadequate mucosectomy due to scarring from previous hemorrhoidectomy on a patient with rectal low-grade dysplasia (LGD). An additional article was removed because the pouch-related cancer was presumably a local recurrence of the previous mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma, showing the same pathological patterns.37 Pedersen et al40 reported that a patient developed a severe stenosis at the site of ileostomy closure, suspect for Crohn's disease, and the pouch was excised 11 years before cancer development in the residual anorectal mucosa. Four corresponding authors18,47,51,55 out of 718,41,44,47,51,54,55 contacted replied and provided additional data. This allowed exclusion of another study (one patient) because of the late diagnosis of Crohn's disease, unknown at the time of publication.47 Thirty-six articles (62 patients) were included in quality assessment, and 2 articles (2 patients) were removed5,36 (Table 2). Three studies were merged as reporting on the same population with data needing to be matched and for good quality of each one.3,4,51 Thirty-four studies reporting on 60 patients were further evaluated. Two patients from the study by Lee et al30 were not included in the analysis because evolution from rectal dysplasia (case 1) and local recurrence of rectal cancer (case 2) could not be ruled out.5 One patient with pouch lymphoma and 3 with SCC in the reports from the Cleveland Clinic,3,4,51 and 4 patients with frank local recurrences in the study by Derikx et al55 (cases 11–14) were excluded. Another patient in the study by Al-Sukhni et al44 with pouch lymphoma was excluded (case 3). Thirty-four studies reporting on 49 patients were hence included. Included studies were from the following countries: the United States (10, 29.4%),3,4,21,23,26,30,38,41,48,51 Italy (6, 17.6%),24,27,34,42,49,50 Germany (3, 8.8%),18,20,31 the United Kingdom (3),32,33,39 Canada (2, 5.6%),44,52 India (2),14,28 Czech Republic (1, 2.9%),17 Greece (1),22 Israel (1),43 Japan (1),19 the Netherlands (1),55 New Zealand (1),25 Spain (1),15 and Sweden (1).54
At the time of drafting the manuscript, we were able to identify 49 cases of pouch adenocarcinoma, of which 14 (28.6%)18,20,26,27,31,33,38,39,41,49,51,55 and 33 (67.3%)14,15,17,19,21–25,28,30,32,34,42–44,48,50–52,54,55 arose from the pouch and anorectal mucosa, respectively. In 2 cases, the cancer was found in the pouch but presumably originated from islets of rectal mucosa.14,15 In 2 patients (4%)52,55 origin was not reported. Besides adenocarcinoma, other pouch-related cancers have been reported, which are not included in the analysis: 7 SCC,3,4,12,29,45,46 3 pouch lymphoma,3,4,16,44 and 1 pouch carcinoid.53 Derikx et al55 also found in the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) a case of pouch lymphoma, which is not described in details.
Mean age at IPAA was 39.1 ± 13.3 years. Male to female ratio was 2 to 1. Raw data of 5136 patients3,4,51,54,55 receiving IPAA were available for cumulative incidence evaluation. Pooled cumulative incidences3,4,51,54,55 of pouch-related adenocarcinoma at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, and 50 years since UC diagnosis were 0, 0, 0.04 (95% CI, 0.035–0.045), 0.12 (95% CI, 0.11–0.13), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.19–0.22), 0.27 (95% CI, 0.26–0.28), 0.31 (95% CI, 0.29–0.32), and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.34–0.36), respectively. When only considering cancer arising from the ileal mucosa, pooled cumulative incidence was 0% up to 15 years after UC diagnosis, reaching 0.04% (95% CI, 0.034–0.045) at 20 years, remained unmodified up to 50 years.
Pooled cumulative incidences3,4,51,54,55 of pouch-related adenocarcinoma after IPAA were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.11–0.13), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.18–0.20), 0.29 (95% CI, 0.28–0.3), and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.31–0.34), 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Primary pouch cancer cumulative incidences did not exceed 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01–0.12) 20 years after IPAA.
Dysplasia or Cancer in the Resected Colon
Of 49 patients diagnosed with pouch-related carcinoma, 28 (57.1%) had dysplasia (14, 28.6%) or cancer (14, 28.6%) on the resected specimen. The stage of pouch-related cancer at presentation did not significantly differ between patients with or without previous dysplasia or cancer (≥stage III, 67.9% versus 42.8%; P = 0.18). Patients with previous dysplasia or cancer on the specimen had shorter pouch duration before cancer diagnosis (7.9 ± 5.8 versus 14.7 ± 7.3 years; P = 0.0012).
We attempted a meta-analysis to assess the risk of developing pouch-related cancer in patients with or without cancer or dysplasia on the specimen. The analysis included 4860 patients.4,43,54,55 Those with previous colorectal cancer or dysplasia were at higher risk of developing pouch-related adenocarcinoma (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.61–16.80). Data seemed homogeneous (τ2 = 0; χ2 = 2.58; P = 0.46; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2).
Disease and Pouch Duration
Mean pouch duration before cancer was 10.8 ± 7.3 years, shorter duration being 1 year.17 No differences were observed according to cancer origin (pouch versus anorectal mucosa 11.9 ± 9 versus 10.9 ± 7 years; P = 0.74). Mean interval between UC diagnosis and pouch-related cancer was 25.3 ± 9.7 years. IPAA cancer was diagnosed 4 years after UC diagnosis at the earliest.41 Patients with at least 10-year history of UC had shorter pouch duration (9.3 ± 7.3 versus 14.5 ± 6.6 years; P = 0.03), but pouch adenocarcinoma developed within 1 year after IPAA even with shorter disease duration.17
Backwash Ileitis, Pouchitis, Mucosal Changes, and Extraintestinal Manifestations
Four patients (8.2%) had backwash ileitis (BWI),18,28,51 of whom 1 developed cancer arising from the pouch.18 Pouchitis was reported in 20 patients (40.8%). Surveillance protocols, and endoscopic and pathological features of the pouch are poorly described in the studies. Pouchitis was defined as “severe” in 2 (4%),20,21 pouch dysplasia was found in 1 (2%),22 whereas chronic atrophic pouchitis (CAP) was clearly described in 4 (8.2%).27,31,39,49 Cancers arising from ileal pouch mucosa were found in 35% of patients with pouchitis and in 20.7% without (P = 0.33). In 100% of patients with CAP, the cancer originated from the pouch versus 22.2% of those without or with inflammation other than CAP pouchitis (P = 0.005).
Extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) were reported in 4 patients (8.2%) and mainly consisted of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) (75%).24,33,41,52 Again, these are poorly assessed in the studies.
Hand-sewn Plus Mucosectomy Versus Stapled Anastomosis
Fifteen patients (30.6%) received mucosectomy,15,18,19,20,24,26–28,30,33,39,44,49,52,55 19 (38.8.4%) did not,17,21–23,25,31,32,34,38,42,43,50,52,55 whereas in 15 (30.6%), it was not reported14,41,48,51,54 or not available.55 A meta-analysis of 3245 North American patients4,44 showed that mucosectomy was associated with higher incidence of subsequent pouch-related carcinoma (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.62–11.72) (Fig. 3). Patients with adenocarcinoma arising from the ileal pouch more frequently received mucosectomy18,20,26,27,33,39,49 than stapled IPAA31,38 (77.8% versus 30.4%; P = 0.02). Stapled IPAA was associated with a higher risk of developing cancer from the anorectal mucosa (OR, 8; 95% CI, 1.3–48.7). Three patients who received mucosectomy developed cancer that was described as arising from the ileoanal anastomosis.19,24,44
A geographical variability was observed. In European countries and Israel, adenocarcinoma occurred after stapled IPAA in 14 patients (60.9%)17,22,31,32,34,42,43,50,55 and after mucosectomy with hand-sewn IPAA in 9 (39.1%)15,18,20,27,33,39,49,55; conversely, in studies from Northern America, it occurred in 4 patients with mucosectomy26,30,44,52 and in 4 without21,23,38,52 (50%). Two patients (66.7%) received mucosectomy19,28 and 1 (33.3%) did not25 in studies from other countries.
Treatment and Survival
Thirty-six patients (73.5%) were fit to surgical treatment. Surgical procedure was often complicated by adhesions and disease extension and required urinary14,39,41,50 and pelvic19,41 floor reconstruction. Posterior adhesions to the sacrum further complicated the surgical procedure.26,30 Only 1 patient (2%) operated on died in the perioperative period due to pelvic hemorrhage.33 Abdominoperineal excision of the pouch was performed in 25 patients (51%), which included resection of adjacent soft tissues and organs in 2 (8%).30,41,50 One patient (2.7%) received exenteration pelvis.41 In 2 patients, the pouch was diverted.21,34 Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments were advocated in 16 patients (32.6%). In 1 patient (2%), brachytherapy tubes were placed during surgical procedure.41 Four patients (8.2%) were not amenable to surgical treatment and received radiotherapy alone or with chemotherapy. In 9 patients (19.1%), no surgical details were available. Length of follow-up after surgical treatment was inadequate to allow conclusions on survival. Palliative surgery was effective in reducing cancer-related symptoms.
Studies included in the present review mainly consist of case reports and case series, and patient characteristics are succinctly described, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. It should be noted that several reviews on the topic are reported in the literature, but the research and study selection methods are not clearly stated in most of these. Also, several inconsistencies between reviews can be found.1,2,5
The first pouch procedure is dated 1978,56 and the first report of a “true,” de novo pouch-related adenocarcinoma was published in 1992.14 Stern et al13 in 1990 published the first description of a “cancer in an ileal pouch”, but this observation was probably flawed, as cancer occurred early after IPAA (4 years) in a patient who had “severe dysplasia” in the rectum of the surgical specimen. A study from the St. Mark’s Hospital in London5 already found that several cases of pouch-related carcinoma were to be ruled out from further evaluation, as cancers were not an “authentic” carcinomas in the pouch or anorectal mucosa. Similarly, we found 49 unequivocal pouch-related adenocarcinomas.3,4,14,15,17–28,30–34,38,39,41–44,48–52,54,55 Recent articles reported a cumulative incidence of pouch-related cancer and dysplasia reaching 5.1% 25 years after IPAA3,4; these alarming data were not confirmed by others, reporting incidence below 0.002% with a mean follow-up of 13.4 years.52 Although an increased rate of pouch-related cancer can be predicted in the next years, we observed a pooled cumulative incidence of 0.35% and 0.33% 50 years after UC diagnosis and 20 years after IPAA, respectively. One should also consider that the initial diagnosis of UC in patients with pouchitis or pouch-related malignancies may have been shifted to Crohn's disease in the long-term follow-up, this not being clearly stated in the article.47 Additionally, 3 articles report on patients developing primary ileal pouch carcinoma found with a perineal abscess41 and pouch/cutaneous fistula,18,22 questioning the diagnosis of UC. Patients with Crohn's disease have been recently reported to be at the higher risk of malignancies than general population and those with UC,57 and small bowel adenocarcinoma is a feature of long-standing Crohn's disease arising from severely inflamed ileal segments.58
The cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer from birth to 75 years in the general population is reported to be as high as 1.96% worldwide by GLOBOCAN 2008.59 The risk of primary pouch-related cancers arising from anorectal residual mucosa derived from pooled analysis of the United States–based and Europe-based studies3,4,51,54,55 does not exceed 0.4% at 80 years. It could be speculated that IPAA is safe and almost abolish the risk of cancer of colorectal origin. The benefits of IPAA over conservative treatment in patients with long-standing remitting-relapsing UC is evident,60 although recent reports suggest lower rates of UC-related colorectal cancer,61,62 explained by methodological aspects of studies and by a true decrease in the risk due to better disease control and surveillance.63
Debate exists as to the benefits of performing mucosectomy in pouch surgery. Based on the reported experiences, mucosectomy does not seem to abolish the risk of subsequent pouch-related cancer.1–4 Stapled IPAA is easier to perform and is associated with better functional outcomes, whereas residual microscopic islets of rectal mucosa have been reported in 20% of patients receiving mucosectomy,64 so that a cancer can develop between the pouch and the muscle layers. Tsunoda et al6 found dysplasia in 3 patients within the anal strip, but 2 had a carcinoma in large bowel. Remzi et al7 studied dysplasia of ATZ performing several biopsies in 289 patients receiving IPAA for a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Eight patients developed ATZ dysplasia in 4 to 123 months. By analyzing data of the United States–based and Canada-based studies,4,44 we found a higher rate of pouch adenocarcinoma in patients receiving mucosectomy (Fig. 2), but patients are poorly described in details. Mucosectomy has been performed a long before the introduction of staplers and observed cancers developed in patients operated on many years ago. We observed geographical disparity between the type of IPAA and the development of pouch-related cancer. Patients with adenocarcinoma in reports from North America received mucosectomy more frequently than those operated on in European countries. It could be speculated that differences in the surgical technique and the extent of mucosectomy may account for this. The complete excision of the anorectal mucosa may prevent dysplasia arising from residual diseased tissue, with optimal oncological results.8 Physiological changes occur in the ileal pouch mucosa, irrespective of the type of anastomosis. High expression of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) and vascular endothelial growth factor was found in patients receiving mucosectomy developing pouchitis or those who are not developing pouchitis,8,65 and the phenomenon has been attributed to colonic metaplasia in the ileal mucosa rather than dysplasia, which is independent from the anastomotic technique. In the present series, most cancer arising primarily from the ileal pouch mucosa affected patients who received mucosectomy, whereas those originating from ATZ were more common in patients with stapled IPAA (OR, 8; 95% CI, 1.3–48.7; P = 0.02), but up to 30% of patients receiving mucosectomy had cancer arising from the residual diseased mucosa. Of 6 cancers not clearly arising from pouch mucosa in the mucosectomy group,19,24,28,30,44,55 319,24,44 were described as originating from the anastomosis, suggesting that an ileal origin cannot be ruled out. Notably, pouch-related cancer in patients receiving mucosectomy arose in 2 cases19,49 from diverted pouch, and hence, an immune-mediated cancerogenesis rather than evolution from residual islets of rectal mucosa can be hypothesized. Another facet to consider is the mucosectomy being performed inadequately15 or in centers without expertise in IPAA surgery, with patients being referred once pouch-related cancers have developed.18,41 Also, mucosectomy is often performed in patients at the high risk of developing pouch-related cancer. Figure 4 shows the number of reported pouch-related cancer according to the origin and type of anastomosis. A subgroup analysis of patients in the present series with at least 1 preoperative risk factor (EIMs, disease duration >10 years, colorectal cancer or dysplasia, BWI) and/or dysplasia or cancer on colectomy specimen showed that those receiving mucosectomy developed pouch-related adenocarcinoma after a longer interval from UC diagnosis than those who did not (29.9 ± 10 versus 19.5 ± 6.3 years; P = 0.012). Patients receiving mucosectomy developed pouch-related carcinoma 18 years after IPAA at the earliest versus 10 years in those receiving stapled IPAA (range, 18–47 versus 10–30 years). This should be considered when planning surveillance.
Several risk factors for the development of pouch-related cancer have been proposed.3–7,9,55 Dysplasia or cancer in the resected colon increases the likelihood of subsequent dysplasia.6–8,55 Tsunoda et al6 and Remzi et al7 found an association between dysplasia in the ATZ and cancer or dysplasia in the postoperative specimen, concluding that the carcinoma poses at high risk the anal mucosa. Approximately 54% to 70% of patients developing pouch-related cancer had a dysplasia or cancer in the operative specimen.5,8 Patients in our analysis found with cancer or dysplasia on the specimen had shorter interval between IPAA and pouch-related cancer diagnosis. By analyzing data of 4860 patients,4,43,54,55 this conferred a significant increase in the likeliness of developing pouch-related adenocarcinomas (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.61–16.80).
The pathway leading to cancerogenesis in UC is different from that of colorectal cancer in general population.51,62,58,66 Inflammation plays a pivotal role in cancer development in inflammatory bowel diseases, and evidences support the inflammation–dysplasia–carcinoma sequence.58,66 Setti-Carraro et al67 and Veress et al68,69 studied the pouch mucosal inflammation through biopsies and classified pouchitis accordingly. They identified a subset of patients with severe pouchitis and constant villous atrophy, suggesting that they may be at the risk of developing dysplasia and should be followed up closely. Gullberg et al70 studied 7 patients with severe atrophy (type C) and 14 control subjects (type A) with flexible endoscopy and multiple biopsies: dysplasia was found in 71% versus 0%, respectively (P < 0.001). In a group of 276 IPAA patients, Banasiewicz et al71 found that pouchitis significantly increased the risk of LGD (OR, 13.48; 95% CI, 1.48–122.86; P = 0.021), progressing to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 6 to 8 years. This observation points out the importance of long-term follow-up, as dysplasia may occur many years after IPAA. Because cumulative incidence of pouch-related cancer is low and evolution from dysplasia (prevalence 1.13%)72 may be gradual, this might offer a reasonable time window for intervention.36,58,73 Levesque et al73 were able to reverse dysplasia with medical therapy. However, the ideal treatment of pouchitis and dysplasia remains unclear, also considering that most patients in the present series were diagnosed with pouchitis years before the development of pouch-related cancer, suggesting a suboptimal management. Das et al74 reported that UC patients with indefinitely diverted pouch develop atrophy with distortions of the ileal pouch mucosa and of the ATZ in those receiving a stapled IPAA, but they did not find any case of dysplasia or cancer.74 However, fecal stream may exert a protective effect over dysplasia,49 as 2 patients in the present series who had failure with definitive ileostomy but retained their pouch developed pouch-related carcinoma with marked alterations of the ileal pouch mucosa.19,49 In 1 included patient52 and in another suspect for Crohn's disease,40 cancer developed from the residual anorectal mucosa after pouch resection. Patients with definitive diversion reluctant to follow-up should be offered abdominoperineal pouch excision, extended to the perineal skin surrounding the anus, particularly in case of a stapled IPAA.
However, EIMs seem to increase the risk of developing pouch-related malignancies. EIMs are associated with higher rates of pouchitis and type C changes of the pouch,75–77 due to an immunological imbalance. Patients with PSC show even 20% higher risk of colorectal carcinoma78 and may develop pouchitis and dysplasia more frequently.9 In the present series, only 3 patients were diagnosed with PSC, and the association with pouch neoplasia has been questioned by more recent reports.4,55
The risk of pouch cancer, as well as that of colorectal cancer in UC, increases with time, probably in a similar fashion.1,71,79 Cancer are reported to occur at least 10 years after UC diagnosis.1,5 UC onset is more important than interval from IPAA when considering surveillance, but disease duration itself may not adequately predict the risk of developing pouch-related cancer. Irrespective of disease duration, patients in the present series, with at least another 1 preoperative risk factor (EIMs, colorectal cancer or dysplasia, BWI), had shorter pouch duration before adenocarcinoma than those without (7.8 ± 5.6 versus 17.7 ± 6 years; P < 0.001). Shorter intervals were 117 and 441 years, respectively. The shortest interval since diagnosis was 10 years.17
Surveillance protocols are debated. Aiming to identify reliable biomarkers and immunohistological markers of pouchitis, which may lead to cancer development, Coull et al80 found that p53 was not useful in routine surveillance of cuff biopsies, up to 12 years after IPAA. This was confirmed in some patients from the present series.39 Several markers of inflammation are overexpressed in ileal pouch, even without the endoscopic evidence of pouchitis.8,65 Vento et al8 studied 42 patients with chronic pouchitis who underwent endoscopy with biopsies and found that COX-2 expression (P < 0.01) positively correlated with mucosal atrophy; Ki-67 immunostaining was increased only in patients with chronic pouchitis (P < 0.002). Obusez et al48 suggested that fecal methylated DNA markers could precede endoscopic/histological anomalies in the pouch. Biomarkers are poorly addressed in the most reported articles, with few exceptions39,48,49,52 and conflicting results,39,52 which do not allow drawing conclusions.
Surveillance is costly, and hence, identifying patients at the higher risk of developing malignancies is crucial to select them for close follow-up. Routine endoscopy is recommended starting from 10 years since diagnosis5; however, we identified several cases “escaping” the conventional protocol, and even developing cancer without dysplasia during accurate follow-ups.32,48 This advocate the need of developing new strategies to identify patients at the risk of developing pouch-related adenocarcinoma.8–11,48,61,65 It would seem prudent to recommend strict surveillance in patients with at least 1 risk factor, according to the type of IPAA. In patients who received a stapled IPAA, it should be started within 10 years after diagnosis,5 whereas in those who received mucosectomy, it could be delayed of 5 years. Subsequently, a pouchoscopy should be performed at least yearly. The protocol should be modulated on evolution, seeking for ileal pouch mucosa anomalies, and potentially intensified accordingly. Irrespective of the type of anastomosis, patients should receive long-term follow-ups, as changes in the pouch may still occur many years after IPAA.8,65,71,79
It is widely accepted that cancers arising from pouch and from anorectal mucosa after IPAA for UC should not be rigidly considered as 2 different entities, but distinguishing between the 2 may guide the surveillance protocols. Polypoid lesions arising from the pouch are often inflammatory polyps, and they should be removed by means of endoscopic polypectomy.36 Data on the management of pouch and cuff dysplasia are scanty. Patients with LGD diagnosed early in the pouch may benefit from cautious wait-and-see policy and managed with medical treatment,58,71–73 on the condition that the patients adhere to annual follow-ups. Adenoma-like LGD may be treated by means of polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection and strict follow-ups.71,72 Foci of HGD should be managed with medical and topical treatment,58 followed by 3- to 6-month controls. Persisting HGD should be resected.72 Dysplasia-associated lesion or mass should be considered as an indication for pouch excision.20 In patients with LGD arising from the residual anorectal mucosa after a stapled IPAA or an inadequate mucosectomy, a mucosectomy and advancement of the IPAA,7,42 followed by strict surveillance, is advisable. The management of HGD arising from the residual anorectal mucosa is less clear. Although some investigators suggested to remove the residual mucosa and advance the pouch,81 others recommend pouch excision, should HGD persist after 3 to 6 months.7 Endoscopy and biopsies of the pouch and ATZ should be performed according to the already described modalities.5,10 At least 2 expert pathologists should assess dysplasia and pouchitis.5 Excision of the pouch is recommended for pouch-related adenocarcinoma, and it must be performed in centers with extensive expertise. Multispecialist operative teams are desirable.14,19,39,41,50 Whether preoperative and/or postoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy should be administered remain controversial.
New technologies may help preventing islets of rectal mucosa to be left in site during mucosectomy and diagnosing at an early stage dysplasia, warranting active treatment during surveillance.11,82
Pouch-related adenocarcinoma is a rare eventuality after IPAA for UC. Forty-nine unequivocal cases of adenocarcinoma arising from the pouch or anorectal residual mucosa are sufficiently described in the literature.
Cumulative incidence does not exceed 0.4% 20 years after IPAA. A shift to diagnosis of Crohn's disease in the long term may further decrease the rates of pouch cancer in UC. The strongest risk factor for pouch adenocarcinoma is the presence of dysplasia or cancer on the proctocolectomy specimen (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.61–16.80). Mucosectomy does not abolish the risk of subsequent cancer, but the technique is surgeon dependent. Avoiding mucosectomy in this series significantly increased the risk of cancer arising from the residual mucosa (OR, 8; 95% CI, 1.3–48.7; P = 0.02).
Surveillance is often performed yearly starting 10 years since diagnosis, but a 5-year delay in patients who received a mucosectomy could be considered. Patients with HGD of the ATZ and pouch-related adenocarcinoma should be offered abdominoperineal excision of the pouch.
1. M'Koma AE, Moses HL, Adunyah SE. Inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer: proctocolectomy and mucosectomy do not necessarily eliminate pouch-related cancer incidences. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:533–552.
2. Um JW, M'Koma AE. Pouch-related dysplasia and adenocarcinoma following restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Tech Coloproctol. 2011;15:7–16.
3. Fazio VW, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, et al.. Ileal pouch anal anastomosis: analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg. 2013;257:679–685.
4. Kariv R, Remzi FH, Lian L, et al.. Preoperative colorectal neoplasia increases risk for pouch neoplasia in patients with restorative proctocolectomy. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:806–812.
5. Das P, Johnson MW, Tekkis PP, et al.. Risk of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma following restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:15–27.
6. Tsunoda A, Talbot IC, Nicholls RJ. Incidence of dysplasia in the anorectal mucosa in patients having restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg. 1990;77:506–508.
7. Remzi FH, Fazio VW, Delaney CP, et al.. Dysplasia of the anal transitional zone after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: results of prospective evaluation after a minimum of ten years. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:6–13.
8. Vento P, Lepistö A, Kärkkäinen P, et al.. Risk of cancer in patients with chronic pouchitis after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:58–66.
9. Ståhlberg D, Veress B, Tribukait B, et al.. Atrophy and neoplastic transformation of the ileal pouch mucosa in patients with ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: a case control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:770–778.
10. McLaughlin SD, Clark SK, Thomas-Gibson S, et al.. Guide to endoscopy of the ileo-anal pouch following restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; indications, technique, and management of common findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1256–1263.
11. Hurlstone DP, Shorthouse AJ, Cross SS, et al.. High-magnification chromoscopic pouchoscopy: a novel in vivo technique for surveillance of the anal transition zone and columnar cuff following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol. 2004;8:173–178; discussion 178.
12. Ravitch MM. The reception of new operations. Ann Surg. 1984;200:231–246.
13. Stern H, Walfisch S, Mullen B, et al.. Cancer in an ileoanal reservoir: a new late complication? Gut. 1990;31:473–475.
14. Puthu D, Rajan N, Rao R, et al.. Carcinoma of the rectal pouch following restorative proctocolectomy. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:257–260.
15. Rodriguez-Sanjuan JC, Polavieja MG, Naranjo A, et al.. Adenocarcinoma in an ileal pouch for ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:779–780.
16. Nyam DC, Pemberton JH, Sandborn WJ, et al.. Lymphoma of the pouch after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:971–972.
17. Sequens R. Cancer in the anal canal (transitional zone) after restorative proctocolectomy with stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12:254–255.
18. Vieth M, Grunewald M, Niemeyer C, et al.. Adenocarcinoma in an ileal pouch after prior proctocolectomy for carcinoma in a patient with ulcerative pancolitis. Virchows Arch. 1998;433:281–284.
19. Iwama T, Kamikawa J, Higuchi T, et al.. Development of invasive adenocarcinoma in a long-standing diverted ileal J-pouch for ulcerative colitis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:101–104.
20. Heuschen UA, Heuschen G, Autschbach F, et al.. Adenocarcinoma in the ileal pouch: late risk of cancer after restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2001;16:126–130.
21. Rotholtz NA, Pikarsky AJ, Singh JJ, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising from along the rectal stump after double-stapled ileorectal J-pouch in a patient with ulcerative colitis: the need to perform a distal anastomosis. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:1214–1217.
22. Baratsis S, Hadjidimitriou F, Christodoulou M, et al.. Adenocarcinoma in the anal canal after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis using a double stapling technique: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:687–691; discussion 691–692.
23. Hyman N. Rectal cancer as a complication of stapled IPAA. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2002;8:43–45.
24. Laureti S, Ugolini F, D'Errico A, et al.. Adenocarcinoma below ileoanal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: report of a case and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:418–421.
25. Bell SW, Parry B, Neill M. Adenocarcinoma in the anal transitional zone after ileal pouch for ulcerative colitis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1134–1137.
26. Bentrem DJ, Wang KL, Stryker SJ. Adenocarcinoma in an ileal pouch occurring 14 years after restorative proctocolectomy: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:544–546.
27. Hassan C, Zullo A, Speziale G, et al.. Adenocarcinoma of the ileoanal pouch anastomosis: an emerging complication? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2003;18:276–278.
28. Negi SS, Chaudhary A, Gondal R. Carcinoma of pelvic pouch following restorative proctocolectomy: report of a case and review of the literature. Dig Surg. 2003;20:63–65.
29. Schaffzin DM, Smith LE. Squamous-cell carcinoma developing after an ileoanal pouch procedure: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1086–1089.
30. Lee SW, Sonoda T, Milsom JW. Three cases of adenocarcinoma following restorative proctocolectomy with hand-sewn anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: a review of reported cases in the literature. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:591–597.
31. Knupper N, Straub E, Terpe HJ, et al.. Adenocarcinoma of the ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis—a complication of severe chronic atrophic pouchitis? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006;21:478–482.
32. Sagar P. Adenocarcinoma in a pouch without a preceding history of dysplasia. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:526–527.
33. Walker M, Radley S. Adenocarcinoma in an ileoanal pouch formed for ulcerative colitis in a patient with primary sclerosing cholangitis and a liver transplant: report of a case and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:909–912.
34. Candioli S, Manigrasso A, Arcieri S, et al.. Adenocarcinoma following restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a case report and review of the literature. G Chir. 2007;28:371–376.
35. Ota H, Yamazaki K, Endoh W, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising below an ileoanal anastomosis after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: report of a case. Surg Today. 2007;37:596–599.
36. Schaus BJ, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, et al.. Clinical features of ileal pouch polyps in patients with underlying ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:832–838.
37. Chia CS, Chew MH, Chau YP, et al.. Adenocarcinoma of the anal transitional zone after double stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:621–623.
38. Koh PK, Doumit J, Downs-Kelly E, et al.. Ileo-anal j-pouch cancer: an unusual case in an unusual location. Tech Coloproctol. 2008;12:341–345.
39. Naik VS, Patil SB, Scholefield J, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising in a background of chronic atrophic pouchitis in an ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis. Histopathology. 2008;53:354–358.
40. Pedersen ME, Rahr HB, Fenger C, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising from the rectal stump eleven years after excision of an ileal J-pouch in a patient with ulcerative colitis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1146–1148.
41. Ault GT, Nunoo-Mensah JW, Johnson L, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising in the middle of ileoanal pouches: report of five cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:538–541.
42. Panier-Suffat L, Marracino M, Resegotti A, et al.. Anal transitional zone adenocarcinoma following restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: case report and review of literature. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2009;72:441–443.
43. Zmora O, Spector D, Dotan I, et al.. Is stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis a safe option in ulcerative colitis patients with dysplasia or cancer? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1181–1186.
44. Al-Sukhni W, McLeod RS, MacRae H, et al.. Oncologic outcome in patients with ulcerative colitis associated with dysplasia or cancer who underwent stapled or handsewn ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1495–1500.
45. D'Souza FR, Lim M, Hainsworth A, et al.. A case of squamous cell carcinoma in an ileoanal pouch. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e314–e315.
46. Macdonald E, Gee C, Kerr K, et al.. Squamous cell carcinoma of an ileo-anal pouch. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:945–946.
47. Gerich ME, McManus MC, McCarter M, et al.. Multifocal pouch body adenocarcinoma following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17:E96–E98.
48. Obusez EC, Liu Y, Bennett AE, et al.. Adenocarcinoma in the ileal pouch: early detection and potential role of fecal DNA methylated markers in surveillance. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:951–953.
49. Marmorale C, Stortoni P, Siquini W, et al.. Adenocarcinoma arising from ileoanal J-pouch mucosa: an announced event? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17:E57–E58.
50. Alessandroni L, Kohn A, Capaldi M, et al.. Adenocarcinoma below stapled ileoanal anastomosis after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Updates Surg. 2012;64:149–152.
51. Jiang W, Shadrach B, Carver P, et al.. Histomorphologic and molecular features of pouch and peripouch adenocarcinoma: a comparison with ulcerative colitis-associated adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:1385–1394.
52. O'Riordan JM, Kirsch R, Mohseni M, et al.. Long-term risk of adenocarcinoma post-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: report of two cases and review of the literature. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:405–410.
53. Al-Khyatt W, Abercrombie JF. Carcinoid tumour complicating a restorative ileo-anal pouch for ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:e62–e63.
54. Andersson P, Norblad R, Söderholm JD, et al.. Ileorectal anastomosis in comparison with ileal pouch anal anastomosis in reconstructive surgery for ulcerative colitis—a single institution experience. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:582–589.
55. Derikx LA, Kievit W, Drenth JP, et al.. Prior colorectal neoplasia is associated with increased risk of ileoanal pouch neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:119–128.e1.
56. Parks AG, Nicholls RJ. Proctocolectomy without ileostomy for ulcerative colitis. BMJ. 1978;2:85–88.
57. Pedersen N, Duricova D, Elkjaer M, et al.. Risk of extra-intestinal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1480–1487.
58. Egan L, D'Inca R, Jess T, et al.. Non-colorectal intestinal tract carcinomas in inflammatory bowel disease: results of the 3rd ECCO pathogenesis scientific workshop (II). J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:19–30.
59. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al.. GLOBOCAN 2008 v1.2. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr
. Accessed October 1, 2013.
60. Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2001;48:526–535.
61. Jess T, Horváth-Puhó E, Fallingborg J, et al.. Cancer risk in inflammatory bowel disease according to patient phenotype and treatment: a Danish population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1869–1876.
62. Sebastian S, Hernández V, Myrelid P, et al.. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: results of the 3rd ECCO pathogenesis scientific workshop (I). J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:5–18.
63. Lakatos PL, Lakatos L. Challenges in calculating the risk for colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1179–1180.
64. O'Connell PR, Pemberton JH, Weiland LH, et al.. Does rectal mucosa regenerate after ileoanal anastomosis? Dis Colon Rectum. 1987;30:1–5.
65. Romano M, Cuomo A, Tuccillo C, et al.. Vascular endothelial growth factor and cyclooxygenase-2 are overexpressed in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:650–659.
66. Rubin DT, Cruz-Correa MR, Gasche C, et al.. Colorectal cancer prevention in inflammatory bowel disease and the role of 5-aminosalicylic acid: a clinical review and update. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:265–274.
67. Setti-Carraro P, Talbot IC, Nicholls RJ. Longterm appraisal of the histological appearances of the ileal reservoir mucosa after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Gut. 1994;35:1721–1727.
68. Veress B, Reinholt FP, Lindquist K, et al.. Different types of mucosal adaptation in the ileal reservoir after restorative proctocolectomy. A two-year follow-up study. APMIS. 1990;98:786–796.
69. Veress B, Reinholt FP, Lindquist K, et al.. Long-term histomorphological surveillance of the pelvic ileal pouch: dysplasia develops in a subgroup of patients. Gastroenterology. 1995;109:1090–1097.
70. Gullberg K, Ståhlberg D, Liljeqvist L, et al.. Neoplastic transformation of the pelvic pouch mucosa in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:1487–1492.
71. Banasiewicz T, Marciniak R, Paszkowski J, et al.. Pouchitis may increase the risk of dysplasia after restorative proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:92–97.
72. Scarpa M, van Koperen PJ, Ubbink DT, et al.. Systematic review of dysplasia after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg. 2007;94:534–545.
73. Levesque BG, Hanson KA, Sandborn WJ. Reversal of multifocal low- and high-grade dysplasia in patients with an ileoanal pouch. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1107–1108
74. Das P, Smith JJ, Lyons AP, et al.. Assessment of the mucosa of the indefinitely diverted ileo-anal pouch. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:512–517.
75. Lohmuller JL, Pemberton JH, Dozois RR, et al.. Pouchitis and extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg. 1990;211:622–627; discussion 627–629.
76. Löfberg R, Leijonmarck CE, Broström O, et al.. Mucosal dysplasia and DNA content in ulcerative colitis patients with ileorectal anastomosis. Follow-up study in a defined patient group. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34:566–571.
77. Löfberg R, Liljeqvist L, Lindquist K, et al.. Dysplasia and DNA aneuploidy in a pelvic pouch. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34:280–283; discussion 283–284.
78. Shetty K, Rybicki L, Brzezinski A, et al.. The risk for cancer or dysplasia in ulcerative colitis patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1643–1649.
79. Haboubi N. Dysplasia in the ileal pouch revisited: what does it mean and what does it imply? Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1–2.
80. Coull DB, Lee FD, Anderson JH, et al.. Long-term cancer risk of the anorectal cuff following restorative proctocolectomy assessed by p53 expression and cuff dysplasia. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:321–327.
81. Coull DB, Lee FD, Henderson AP, et al.. Risk of dysplasia in the columnar cuff after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg. 2003;90:72–75.
82. Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Fiori G, et al.. Confocal laser endomicroscopy for the detection of mucosal changes in ileal pouch after restorative proctocolectomy. Dig Liver Dis. 2009;41:578–585.
Keywords:© Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America, Inc.
restorative proctocolectomy; ulcerative colitis; carcinoma; adenocarcinoma; neoplasms; IPAA