Jafari Pari, Drogan Christine, Keel Emma, Kupfer Sonia, Hart John, Setia Namrata
Department of Pathology, University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 6101, Room S-638, IL 60637-1470, Chicago, USA.
Department of Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Virchows Arch. 2025 May 13. doi: 10.1007/s00428-025-04118-1.
Only a minority of patients at high likelihood of a gastrointestinal polyposis syndrome (GPS) are appropriately referred for workup. This proof-of-concept study evaluates a GPS screening rubric based exclusively on information in prior pathology reports and intended to facilitate pathologist engagement in GPS screening and referral. We sought to (1) identify patients who would benefit from further GPS workup, (2) assign a probable polyposis syndrome category (adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed), and (3) suggest a specific syndrome, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, whenever possible. We retrospectively tested the rubric against the pathology records of 108 patients (median, 6 reports/patient) with an established clinical diagnosis of GPS (adenomatous (N = 88), hamartomatous (N = 18), and mixed (N = 2) polyposis syndromes). Records were reviewed chronologically (mean, 4.4 min/patient) by a GI pathologist blinded to clinical history. Ninety-five patients (88%) had a positive GPS screen (N = 76 with an adenomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 17 with a hamartomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 2 with a mixed polyposis syndrome); all were assigned to the correct syndrome category. In a subset of cases, the histopathologic record suggested a specific syndrome (correct in 28 of 30 instances). Of 13 patients with a negative screen (failure to meet any rubric parameters), N = 6 (46.2%) had incomplete records. These findings demonstrate that when robust records are available, structured review of pathology reports is a sensitive and efficient tool for the identification of patients with a high suspicion of a GPS. While prospective studies are necessary, pathologists are indeed well positioned to play an expanded role in GPS screening.
只有少数极有可能患胃肠息肉病综合征(GPS)的患者得到了适当的检查。这项概念验证研究评估了一种GPS筛查准则,该准则完全基于既往病理报告中的信息,旨在促进病理学家参与GPS筛查和转诊。我们试图(1)确定那些将从进一步的GPS检查中受益的患者,(2)确定可能的息肉病综合征类别(腺瘤性、错构瘤性、锯齿状或混合型),以及(3)尽可能提出一种特定的综合征,如家族性腺瘤性息肉病。我们对108例已确诊为GPS(腺瘤性(N = 88)、错构瘤性(N = 18)和混合型(N = 2)息肉病综合征)的患者的病理记录进行了回顾性测试该准则。一位对临床病史不知情的胃肠病理学家按时间顺序回顾了这些记录(平均每位患者4.4分钟)。95例患者(88%)的GPS筛查呈阳性(76例为腺瘤性息肉病综合征,17例为错构瘤性息肉病综合征,2例为混合型息肉病综合征);所有患者都被归入了正确的综合征类别。在一部分病例中,组织病理学记录提示了一种特定的综合征(30例中有28例正确)。在13例筛查阴性(未达到任何准则参数)的患者中,6例(46.2%)的记录不完整。这些发现表明,当有完善的记录时,对病理报告进行结构化审查是识别高度怀疑患有GPS的患者的一种敏感且有效的工具。虽然前瞻性研究是必要的,但病理学家在GPS筛查中确实有能力发挥更大的作用。