FROM THE LITERATURE

Long-Term Risk of Malignancy in IPMNs

Read Article

To evaluate long-term outcome of patients with branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), particularly those after 5 years of surveillance, incidence of IPMN-derived carcinoma was analyzed with concomitant ductal adenocarcinoma (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma – PDAC) over 20 years in a large population of patients. A total of 1404 consecutive patients (52% women, mean age 57.5), with a diagnosis of IPMN from 1994 through 2017 at the University of Tokyo, Japan was carried out using a competing risk analysis, estimating cumulative incidence of pancreatic carcinoma overall and by carcinoma type.

Competing risks proportional hazards models to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs), for incidences of carcinoma to differentiate IPMNderived and concomitant carcinomas, collection of genomic DNA from available paired samples of IPMNs and carcinomas and detected mutations in GNAS and KRAS by polymerase chain reaction and pyrosequencing was carried out.

During 9231 person-years of followup, 68 patients were identified with pancreatic carcinoma (38 patients with IPMN-derived carcinoma and 30 patients with concomitant PDACs); the overall incidence rates were 3.3%, 6.6% and 15% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. Among 804 patients followed more than 5 years, overall cumulative incidence rates of pancreatic carcinoma were 3.5% at 10 years and 12% at 15 years from the initial diagnosis. The size of the IPMN and the diameter of the main pancreatic duct associated with incidence of IPMN-derived carcinoma (SHR 1.85 for a 10 mm increase in IPMN size and SHR 1.56 for a 1 mm increase in the main pancreatic duct diameter), but not with incidence of concomitant PDAC.

It was concluded in a large, long-term study of patients with branch-duct IPMNs, we found a 5-year incidence rate of pancreatic malignancy to be 3.3%, reaching 15% at 15 years after IPMN and diagnosis. There were heterogeneous risk factor profiles between IPMN-derived and concomitant carcinomas.

Oyama, H., Tada, M., Takagi, K., et al. “LongTerm Risk of Malignancy in Branch-Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms.” Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 158, pp. 226-237.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #63

Afferent Limb Syndrome Treated via Lumen Apposing Metal Stents: Report of Two Different Approaches in Two Patients

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Afferent limb syndrome is a known postoperative complication that typically occurs in patients who have undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy or gastrectomy with either Roux-en-Y or Billroth II reconstruction. These surgeries create a gastrojejunostomy, an upstream segment of small intestine, which contains biliary and pancreatic anastomoses or the native papilla, and if this limb becomes obstructed it is termed afferent limb syndrome. Historically, surgery to relieve the obstruction has been the primary treatment modality for patients with afferent limb obstruction. However, endoscopic interventions have also shown efficacy in treating afferent limb syndrome,1 and may be preferable in patients not suitable for surgery. Recently, lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have provided a novel therapeutic option for the endoscopist seeking to treat afferent limb syndrome. The following cases describe two different approaches for employing LAMS in the treatment of afferent limb syndrome: One transluminal placement and the other endoluminal.

Case 1

A 59-year-old man with a medical history notable for Stage III pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy five months prior to presentation. He developed persistent abdominal pain requiring celiac neurolysis three months post operatively. He was referred from an outside hospital following a one-month history of intractable nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, anorexia and weight loss. A CT scan demonstrated intrahepatic duct dilation and marked dilation of the patient’s afferent limb at 4.8 cm with a transition point in the anterior mid abdomen concerning for obstruction and afferent limb syndrome. The patient was deemed to be unable to tolerate surgery due to poor functional and nutritional status and was referred for endoscopic evaluation and treatment. The patient underwent push enteroscopy to evaluate his anatomy. Stenosis of the afferent jejunal limb was appreciated. The endoscope could not pass through the stenosis into the afferent limb. A 10 French x 10cm double pigtail stent was advanced over a 0.035-inch guidewire and placed across the stenosis of the afferent limb in an attempt to allow decompression, but this was clinically unsuccessful and the stent migrated in short order. Following the push enteroscopy, the patient continued to have ongoing pain, nausea, vomiting and an intolerance for intake by mouth. Subsequent CT four days later showed increased dilation of the afferent limb at 5.9 cm. Given the patient’s worsening obstruction, the decision was made to proceed with a transluminal approach to decompression via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) gastroenterostomy.

The next day the patient was brought back to the endoscopy suite. Using a linear EUS scope, the obstructed afferent limb was identified. The affected small bowel appeared dilated with a diameter of approximately 8-9cm, was fully effaced and was found to contain a large amount of fluid. (Figure 1) After Doppler US confirmed a clear route to access the limb, a 19-gauge EUS FNA needle was used to access the limb. Contrast was injected into the afferent limb with a cholangiogram was obtained during injection, confirming afferent limb access had been obtained. (Figure 2) Aspiration of fluid showed bile, further corroborating afferent limb access. A 0.025″ wire was used to maintain access to the afferent limb. An electrocautery enhanced Axios catheter (Boston Scientific, Natick MA) was then used to create a gastroenterostomy over the wire. A 15mm x 10mm Hot Axios LAMS was then deployed across the gastroenterostomy without difficulty. Five liters of bilious fluid, approximately, drained through the stent to the stomach. (Figure 3) The stent was confirmed to be in adequate position as seen on endoscopy, EUS, and fluoroscopy. Repeat endoscopy six days postprocedure also confirmed suitable stent position and patency and the patient had marked improvement in his symptoms.

Case 2

A 66-year-old woman with Stage II pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a history of a pancreaticoduodenectomy presented to urgent care complaining of paroxysmal abdominal pain without nausea or vomiting. A PET CT scan roughly one month prior demonstrated two hypermetabolic soft tissue densities concerning for recurrence of pancreatic cancer; one 2.3 cm x 1.2 cm near the confluence of the superior mesenteric and portal veins and another 1cm nodule near the pancreaticojejunostomy anastomosis. Laboratory testing obtained on the day of procedure was notable for an elevated total bilirubin at 5.1 and alkaline phosphatase of 1,139 previously 1.4 and 678, respectively, one month prior. Using a colonoscope, the afferent limb was traversed and was noted to have extrinsic impression on the duodenum causing a high-grade bowel obstruction that was unable to be traversed with the colonoscope. Given the concern for possible afferent limb syndrome, the patient’s next of kin was called and consent was obtained for possible LAMS placement. After consent was obtained, the colonoscope was exchanged for a therapeutic gastroscope and was advanced through the afferent limb to the area of stenosis. Using direct endoscopic and fluoscopic guidance a 9-12mm balloon catheter with a 0.035″ guidewire was passed through the stricture. (Figure 5) Fluoroscopy revealed dilated bowel upstream of the stricture, which confirmed previous suspicion of afferent limb syndrome. A 15mm wide x 10mm long Axios stent was advanced over the guidewire and deployed across the stenosis. A large amount of bilious fluid drained through the stent immediately after deployment. (Figure 6) The gastroscope was then withdrawn and an ultrathin gastroscope was inserted and advanced through the LAMS and into the loop of bowel containing the hepaticojejunostomy, further confirming proper stent location. (Figure 7) Contrast was injected and brisk flow of contrast through the ducts was noted as well as diffuse dilation of all intrahepatic biliary ducts.

Linear EUS confirmed that the area of concern previously identified on PET CT appeared to correspond to the identified area of afferent limb narrowing. No overt mass was identified. Additionally, fine needle aspiration was deferred given suboptimal visualization secondary to significant artifact related to air bubbles created by the LAMS. Following LAMS placement, the patient noted clinical improvement as well as improving bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase on follow up laboratory testing.

Discussion

Afferent limb syndrome, sometimes referred to as afferent loop syndrome, is an obstructive complication that occurs following pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastrectomy with Billroth II or Roux-en-Y reconstruction, where the afferent limb becomes obstructed and the patient develops abdominal pain. Common etiologies of afferent limb syndrome include postoperative adhesions, enteroenteric hernia, volvulus, stricture, radiation enteritis, recurrence of malignancy, enteroliths or foreign bodies.2, 3 The overall incidence of afferent limb syndrome is low, affecting between 0.2% – 1% of patients who undergo partial gastrectomy.2, 4 However, patients who undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer have been noted to have an incidence of 13%.1 Acute afferent limb syndrome often presents as abrupt, severe abdominal pain accompanied by nausea and vomiting, while chronic presentations may often present as post prandial abdominal discomfort or food avoidance.1 Jaundice also can be seen despite the absence of biliary obstruction as the afferent limb fills with bilious fluid, which cannot drain. If untreated, afferent limb syndrome may lead to mesenteric ischemia as well as bowel perforation and peritonitis, which can include a component of bile peritonitis. Partial obstruction of the afferent limb syndrome can also cause small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and associated sequelae such as B12 deficiency and steatorrhea.2,5

Historically, surgical therapy has been the mainstay treatment of afferent limb syndrome. This may include palliative surgery in the setting of malignancy, possible revision of a Billroth II reconstruction, conversion of a Billroth II to a Roux-en-Y or the addition of a Braun anastomosis, where an anastomosis is created from the afferent limb directly to the efferent limb effectively bypassing the gastrojejunal anastomosis.6 Nonsurgical management options include percutaneous drainage, but this is often a suboptimal treatment from the patient’s perspective as it may negatively impact quality of life.7 Endoscopic interventions provide another approach to afferent limb syndrome and may include balloon dilation, double-pigtail stent placement, biliary plastic or metal stent placement.1,8

Most recently the use of LAMS has provided another potential option for managing afferent limb syndrome in patients not suitable for surgery. LAMS have proved useful for a variety of indications including cystgastrostomies,9 cholecystenterostomies or cholecystgastrostomies,10 as well as endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP procedures (EDGE).11 Using a LAMS to access and decompress an obstructed afferent limb endoscopically is another fitting application of this novel technology The current literature has several published case reports describing successful deployment of LAMS for treatment of afferent limb syndrome.12,13,14,15,16 To date the literature only provides one small multicenter study examining the safety and efficacy outcomes of LAMS for management of afferent limb syndrome.17 The study included eighteen patients and found technical success to be 100%, with only 16.7% experiencing adverse events that were described as abdominal pain.17 The most common approach in this cohort was the creation of a gastrojejunostomy (72.2%) via LAMS placement. An indirect comparison between patients with LAMS placement for afferent limb syndrome and patients who underwent enteroscopy-assisted luminal stenting revealed that patients with LAMS required fewer repeat interventions.17

CONCLUSION

Since their FDA approval in 2013, LAMS have proved to have a variety of uses beyond their original intended purpose: drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and necrosis. The two cases presented here further demonstrate the versatility of LAMS in successfully treating afferent limb syndrome, using either a transluminal or endoluminal approach. While the use of LAMS for treatment of afferent limb is indeed promising, future longitudinal studies are needed to better describe long-term outcomes and adverse events associated with this procedure.

References

  1. Pannala R, Brandabur JJ, Gan SI, Gluck M, Irani S, Patterson DJ, Ross AS, Dorer R, Traverso LW, Picozzi VJ, Kozarek RA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Aug;74(2):295-302. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.029.
  2. Blouhos K, Boulas KA, Tsalis K, Hatzigeorgiadis A. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Sep 27;7(9):190-5. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i9.190.
  3. Lee MC, Bui JT, Knuttinen MG, Gaba RC, Scott Helton W, Owens CA. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009 Sep;32(5):1091- 6. doi: 10.1007/s00270-009-9561-3. Epub 2009 Apr 14.
  4. Ramos-Andrade D, Andrade L, Ruivo C, Portilha MA, CaseiroAlves F, Curvo-Semedo L. Insights Imaging. 2016 Feb;7(1):7- 20. doi: 10.1007/s13244-015-0451-8. Epub 2015 Dec 5.
  5. Salem A, Ronald BC (2014) Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO). J Gastroint Dig Syst 4: 225. doi:10.4172/2161- 069X.1000225
  6. Bolton JS, Conway WC 2nd. Surg Clin North Am. 2011 Oct;91(5):1105-22. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2011.07.001. Review
  7. Sato Y, Inaba Y, Murata S, Yamaura H, Kato M, Kawada H, Shimizu Y, Ishiguchi T. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Apr;26(4):566- 72. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.11.010. Epub 2015 Jan 19.
  8. Brewer Gutierrez OI, Irani SS, Ngamruengphong S, Aridi HD, Kunda R, Siddiqui A, Dollhopf M, Nieto J, Chen YI, Sahar N, Bukhari MA, Sanaei O, Canto MI, Singh VK, Kozarek R, Khashab MA. Endoscopy. 2018 Sep;50(9):891-895. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-102254. Epub 2018 Mar 2
  9. Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, Nieto J, Shah JN, Binmoeller KF, Kane S, Yan L, Laique SN, Kowalski T, Loren DE, Taylor LJ, Munigala S, Bhat YM. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):699-707. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.020. Epub 2015 Oct 26.
  10. Dollhopf M, Larghi A, Will U, Rimbaş M, Anderloni A, Sanchez-Yague A, Teoh AYB, Kunda R. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Oct;86(4):636-643. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.027. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
  11. Dubroff, J.; Adler, D.G. Practical Gastroenterology, February 2019, Vol.43(2), pp.34-38
  12. Ermerak G, Behary J, Edwards P, Abi-Hanna D, Bassan MS. VideoGIE. 2019 Aug 13;4(10):461-463. doi: 10.1016/j. vgie.2019.07.002. eCollection 2019 Oct.
  13. Ikeuchi N, Itoi T, Tsuchiya T, Nagakawa Y, Tsuchida A. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):166. doi: 10.1016/j. gie.2015.01.010. Epub 2015 Apr 14.
  14. Monino L, Barthet M, Gonzalez JM. Endoscopy. 2019 Jul 1. doi: 10.1055/a-0948-5033. [Epub ahead of print]
  15. Lakhtakia S, Chavan R, Basha J, Nabi Z, Gupta R, Reddy DN. Endoscopy. 2019 Sep;51(9):E253-E254. doi: 10.1055/a-0890- 3182. Epub 2019 May 9.
  16. Rodrigues-Pinto E, Grimm IS, Baron TH. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Apr;14(4):633-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.010. Epub 2015 Dec 7.
  17. Brewer Gutierrez OI, Irani SS, Ngamruengphong S, Aridi HD, Kunda R, Siddiqui A, Dollhopf M, Nieto J, Chen YI, Sahar N, Bukhari MA, Sanaei O, Canto MI, Singh VK, Kozarek R, Khashab MA. Endoscopy. 2018 Sep;50(9):891-895. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-102254. Epub 2018 Mar 2.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Dupilumab in Treatment of Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Read Article

Dupilumab is a VelocImmune derived human monoclonal antibody against the interleukin (IL4) receptor and inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. It is effective in the treatment of allergic, atopic, and type 2 diseases, and to assess its efficacy and safety in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a phase 2 study of adults with EoE (2 episodes of dysphagia per week with peak esophageal eosinophilic density of 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field) from 5/12/2015 through 11/9/2016 at 14 sites. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received weekly subcutaneous injections of dupilumab (300 mg, N = 23), or placebo (N = 24) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was changed from baseline to week 10 in Straumann dysphagia instrument (SDI). Patientreported outcome (PRO) histologic features of EoE were assessed (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophilic count and EoE histologic scores, endoscopically visualized features (endoscopic reference score), esophageal distensibility, and safety.

The mean SDI and PRO score were 6.4 when the study began. In the dupilumab group, SDI/PRO scores were reduced by a mean value of 3 at week 10, compared with a mean reduction of 1.3 in the placebo group. At week 12, dupilumab reduced the peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count by a mean 86.8 eosinophils per high-power field (reduction of 107.1% vs placebo), the EoE histologic scoring system (HSS) severity score by 68.3% and the endoscopic reference score by 1.6%. Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility by 18% vs placebo. Higher proportions of patients in the dupilumab group developed injection site erythema (35% vs 8% in placebo group) and nasopharyngitis (17% vs 4% in the placebo group).

In a phase 2 trial of patients with active EoE, dupilumab reduced dysphagia, histologic features of disease, including eosinophilic infiltration and a marker of type 2 inflammation and abnormal endoscopic features compared with placebo. It was generally well tolerated.

Hirano, I., Dellon, E., Hamilton, J., et al. “Efficacy of Dupilumab in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Adults with Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis.” Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 158, pp. 111-122.

Download Tables, Images & References

A CASE REPORT

Collagenous Gastritis in a Patient with Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Collagenous gastritis is a rare disease characterized by subepithelial deposition of collagen bands within the gastric mucosa.3 While this disorder demonstrates similar histologic characteristics to the more welldescribed collagenous colitis, little is known about collagenous gastritis. Whereas the reported annual incidence of collagenous colitis is 1.1 to 5.2 cases per 100,000, collagenous gastritis is thought to be much rarer.2,3

Based on current published case reports, the disease has been identified as having two phenotypes, pediatric and adult. The pediatric phenotype commonly manifests as iron deficiency anemia and abdominal pain, which is thought to be related to chronic inflammation in the upper gastrointestinal tract.3,5 In contrast, the adult phenotype is typically characterized by more widespread disease, and is associated with collagenous colitis, usually presenting with watery diarrhea.3 Adult collagenous gastritis has also been seen in association with a variety of autoimmune disorders including celiac disease, thyroid disease, Sjögren’s syndrome, amongst others.1,2,3

Collagenous gastritis is diagnosed histologically as subepithelial deposition of collagen bands thicker than 10mm with evidence of chronic inflammation characterized by the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophilic infiltrates. 5 Endoscopically, findings of mucosal nodularity have been described in this disease. 2,3 While the pathogenesis is unclear, the mucosal nodularity seen on endoscopy is thought to represent islands of normal cells surrounded by crypts of collagen deposition from chronic inflammation. 3

Case

A 32 year-old man was referred for evaluation of iron deficiency anemia, intermittent upper abdominal pain, and dysphagia. His history was significant for a partial right lower lobe lobectomy for a carcinoid tumor 11 years prior. Upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were performed for additional workup of his symptoms and anemia.

Initial endoscopy demonstrated deep linear furrows throughout the esophagus with distal esophageal rings. Duodenal and gastric biopsies were negative for celiac disease or Helicobacter pylori, while esophageal biopsies demonstrated squamous mucosa with up to 50 eosinophils per high powered field (HPF) throughout the distal, mid, and proximal esophagus, consistent with a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. Celiac serologies were unremarkable. Biopsies of the cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum were negative for active or chronic inflammation, with no increase in subepithelial collagen or other evidence of collagenous or lymphocytic colitis, the two main subtypes of microscopic colitis. Iron supplementation was started, and the patient was initiated on a proton-pump-inhibitor (PPI) for an eight-week course which improved of his dysphagia and abdominal discomfort. Following his PPI treatment, repeat upper endoscopy with biopsies demonstrated resolution of his esophageal eosinophilia with no eosinophilic infiltration noted on histology. Iron supplementation was discontinued upon normalization of iron levels.

After initially showing improvement, he re-presented two years later now with similar symptoms. Repeat upper endoscopy was performed demonstrating linear furrows and esophageal rings (Figure 1), as well as gastric erythema with slight nodularity (Figure 2). Interestingly, biopsies of the gastric antrum and fundus at this time demonstrated subepithelial collagen deposition confirmed by trichrome stain, consistent with collagenous gastritis (Figures 3a, 3b). Esophageal biopsies performed were also notable for intraepithelial eosinophils, up to 10 eosinophils per HPF (Figure 4). Patient also underwent small intestinal capsule endoscopy which was unrevealing. The patient was restarted on both iron supplementation and a PPI, with improvement of his symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Collagenous gastritis is a rare and complex disease that has been associated with various autoimmune disorders and chronic inflammatory states, as well as a possible link to eosinophilic esophagitis, as demonstrated above. The pathogenesis of collagenous gastritis is still unclear.1 A multiinstitutional series of 40 patients with collagenous gastritis suggested three distinct histologic patterns for the disease, including a lymphocytic-gastritis pattern, an atrophic pattern, and an eosinophilrich pattern.1 This latter histologic pattern may in part demonstrate how chronic eosinophilic infiltration could relate these two conditions, however further studies need to be performed to clarify this hypothesis.

The diagnosis of collagenous gastritis requires histology demonstrating subepithelial collagen deposition with chronic inflammation, as demonstrated in Figures 3a and 3b.3,4 While the disease classically presents with mucosal nodularity, data have shown that some adult cases can also present predominantly with mucosal erythema as demonstrated in this case (Figure 2).3,4

There is no clear consensus on the treatment of collagenous gastritis. Multiple therapies have been attempted, including acid suppression, iron supplementation, hypoallergenic diets, sucralfate, azathioprine, among others, however to date there are no randomized control trials demonstrating treatment efficacy of any of these approaches.3 Data demonstrate that iron supplementation effectively manages iron deficiency anemia in those with collagenous gastritis, however, it is unclear if the clinical course or natural history of this disease is altered with this therapy.5

Overall, the prognosis remains unclear in this condition. Based on current information, there have been cases of histologic resolution; however, other case reports have demonstrated the persistence of subepithelial collagen deposits despite resolution of symptoms,3,4 suggesting the heterogeneity of this condition and perhaps that further subtypes may exist. For now, awareness of this disorder and pointed discussion with our expert pathology colleagues is essential in its recognition. As with any condition, the existence of this disorder must be realized in order for the diagnosis to be considered. Ultimately, given the rarity of this condition, more information is needed to further understand collagenous gastritis, and determine how best to treat patients affected by this intriguing and insufficiently understood disease.

References

1. Arnason, T., Brown, I. S., Goldsmith, J. D., Anderson, W., Obrien, B. H., Wilson, C., Lauwers, G. Y. (2014). Collagenous gastritis: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 40 patients. Modern Pathology, 28(4), 533–544. doi: 10.1038/ modpathol.2014.119

2. Brain, O., Rajaguru, C., Warren, B., Booth, J., & Travis, S. (2009). Collagenous gastritis: reports and systematic review. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 21(12), 1419– 1424. doi: 10.1097/meg.0b013e32832770fa

3. Kamimura, K., Kobayashi, M., Sato, Y., & Terai, S. (2015). Collagenous gastritis: Review. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 7(3), 265–273. doi: 10.4253/ wjge.v7.i3.265

4. Mandaliya, R., DiMarino, A., Abraham, S., Burkart, A., & Cohen, S. (2013). Collagenous Gastritis a Rare Disorder in Search of a Disease. Gastroenterology Research, 6(4), 139–144. doi: 10.4021/gr564w

5. Matta, J., Alex, G., Cameron, D. J., Chow, C. W., Hardikar, W., & Heine, R. G. (2018). Pediatric Collagenous Gastritis and Colitis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 67(3), 328–334. doi: 10.1097/ mpg.0000000000001975

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #30

Crohn’s Disease Complicated by an Intra-abdominal Abscess: Poke, Prod, or Cut?

Read Article

Crohn’s disease is a chronic, inflammatory bowel disease characterized by transluminal bowel inflammation that can involve any segment of the gastrointestinal tract. The natural progression of Crohn’s disease results in penetrating complications, including abscesses. In the management of intra-abdominal abscesses, clinicians face a therapeutic dilemma where issues of management of disease activity with immunotherapy must be balanced with the risk of worsening infectious complications. Historically, the management strategies utilized included surgical drainage. Recent data has demonstrated the efficacy of antibiotics and percutaneous drainage followed by therapy with biologics. Considering the therapeutic quandaries associated with management, a multi-disciplinary approach to intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease is required. Herein, we review the current data regarding the management of intra-abdominal abscess complications in Crohn’s disease. We highlight both medical and surgical management strategies. We also present an algorithmic strategy for the management of these complications.

INTRODUCTION

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing and remitting condition exemplified by transmural inflammation involving any part of the gastrointestinal tract. Moreover, the disease appears to be progressive, evolving from primary inflammatory disease to a disease with stenotic or penetrating complications in a majority of patients.1-3 Penetrating complications related to Crohn’s disease include fistulae, perforations, and the development of intra-abdominal or pelvic abscesses. The rates of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) described in the literature has been estimated at approximately 20%.4 Abscess development can occur spontaneously or as a post-operative complication. In the context of active disease, abscess formation presents a therapeutic challenge for health care providers. The management of disease with immunosuppressive agents must be balanced by the potential risk of potentiating septic complications. Classically, the management strategy reserved for intra-abdominal abscess in Crohn’s disease was surgical drainage, operative resection and potential ostomy creation. Recently, the management of abscess has changed with an increasing reliance on antibiotics with percutaneous drainage when possible.

Confounding a uniform management strategy is the fact that there are a paucity of evidence based data. As such, treatment approaches should ideally be individualized and decision-making should involve a multidisciplinary approach, involving teams of specialists. To aid, we summarize the evidence related to the management of IAA in Crohn’s disease. We highlight the treatment pathways and provide an algorithmic approach for guidance in the management CD associated IAA.

Mechanism and Risk Factors for the Development of Intra-Abdominal Abscess in Crohn’s Disease

Abscess development in CD is proposed to occur through three distinct mechanisms: direct extension of enteric bacteria from sites of transmural bowel inflammation with fistulae formation to adjacent structures, hematologic seeding in the setting of transient bacteremia for areas of diseased bowel, or peritoneal contamination at the time of surgical intervention. Corresponding to these mechanisms are the common sites of abscess formation. Most commonly, abscess formation appears to involve the peritoneum, often in dependent sites, and often associated with diseased bowel.4,5 Less often is abscess development observed in association with the retroperitoneum, abdominal wall, or liver.

Commonly, most abscess reveal polymicrobial isolates when cultured. A retrospective study of 97 patients with CD who developed IAA spontaneously demonstrated that 151 aerobic bacterial species. The most common associated bacteria isolated were E. coli, K. pnumoniae, and E faecium.6 A subsequent newer study also suggested a similar microbial isolate from 92 patients with CD.7 Of the 174 isolated bacteria in the study, a minority showed a pattern of resistance to commonly administered antibiotics. Of note, therapy with corticosteroids was associated with quinolone-resistance E. coli species, leading to inadequate antibiosis.

Risk factors associated with the development of spontaneous abscess in patients with Crohns’ disease include the use of corticosteroids. Of note, a prior study has suggested that the use of oral corticosteroids was associated a 9-fold increased odds of developed an abdominopelvic abscess.8 A similar study has also suggested that the use of preoperative corticosteroids was associated with an increased risk of intra-abdominal septic complications in patients following operative resection.9

Smoking has long been associated with the development of penetrating complications in IBD, including abscess.10 The use of tobacco has also been linked to early recurrence of penetrating disease in Crohn’s following operative remission.11

Prior studies investigating the effect of medical therapies, including the previously mentioned study have suggested no increased risk of abscess formation in the setting of azathioprine use.8 In single center studies, there has been conflicting evidence regarding the development of postoperative abscess complications in Crohn’s disease patients, who have been exposed to biologics.12-14 However, the PUCCINI study evaluated the effect of pre-operative anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) in a multi-center, prospective cohort. TNF-inhibitor exposure was defined not only by patient-reported anti-TNF use but also through the detection of peri-operative TNF drug levels. 955 patients were included in the study, of which 574 had no exposure to anti-TNF and 382 patients had exposure 12 weeks prior to surgery. Frequency of any infection defined by a detectable anti-TNF was 19.7% in the unexposed cohort and 19.6 in the exposed cohort. The study suggested that exposure to ant-TNF within 12 weeks of surgery did not increase the risk of post-operative infectious complications.

Management of Intra-abdominal Abscess
in Patients with Crohn’s Disease

Initial Management

A standardized approach to initial intraabdominal abscess management in patients with Crohn’s disease has not been studied. However, a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating not only surgical and gastroenterology expertise, but also consultation with radiologist and infectious disease specialists is warranted.

Upon the exclusion of alternative etiologies, anti-infective therapy should be initiated. Agents effective against enteric organisms, specifically gram-negative bacilli, anaerobic bacilli, and grampositive bacteria are warranted. Considering the potential for possible resistant organisms, proposed agents included piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillinclavulanate, cefoxitin, ertapenem, meropenum, moxifloxacin, or tigecycline as single agent therapy. Alternatively, a cephalosporin, second or third generation, or ciprofloxacin combined with metronidazole has also been suggested. Broadbased therapy is often initiated early in the course of illness and narrowed with the return of culture and sensitivity data. Parenteral antibiotics are preferred as evidence regarding the use of oral antibiotics in the acute setting is limited.

Supportive care including the use of resuscitative intravenous fluid management, nonopiate analgesics, anti-pyretics, and close clinical monitoring is also warranted. The management of sepsis may also require the need for vasopressor support, colloid administration, and intensive-care monitoring. In the setting of chronic corticosteroid use, discontinuation may need to be balanced with the potential for possible adrenal insufficiency. Nevertheless, in the acute setting, the withdrawal or de-escalation of agents is appropriate.

The duration of antibiotics is determined by the efficacy of the drainage procedures. For adequately drained abscess, antibiotics should be continued for 3-7 days. In the absence of appropriate drainage, long courses of antibiotics may be required with interval re-imaging to ensure appropriate resolution. Imaging techniques to consider include not only repeat computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MRI) imaging but potentially the use of contrast injection through drainage catheters to assess continuity of the fluid collection with the bowel. Additional diagnostics to also pursue include an ileocolonoscopy to assess the extent of disease. In terms of nutritional support, bowel rest is often warranted in the acute setting with the potential need for total parenteral nutrition.

Percutaneous Drainage

The drainage of fluid collections through radiologic means, either ultrasound or CT guidance, has significantly altered the management strategy of IAA in CD. Radiographic drainage is the first line therapy in combination with antimicrobial treatment. Initial usage of interventional drainage procedures was reported in short case reports.15 Nevertheless, with advancement in imaging techniques, the usage of percutaneous drainage (PD) for the management abscess has become more common. A claims-based study using the nationwide inpatient sample of 3926 hospitalization suggested an increase in the use of PD for the management of abscess from 7% in 1998 to 29% in 2007.16

PD has been assessed not only as an option to avoid surgery but also as a bridge, allowing for patient optimization for eventual surgical management. In the largest retrospective cohort study, 87 patients with Crohn’s disease were managed with PD, the primary technical success was reported at 77%, with a subsequent increase in successful drainage with catheter manipulation to 84.3% without serious complications.17

From the perspective of safety, although the risk of injury to structures in close proximity to abscess collections exist as well as concern for potential hemorrhage, major complications associated with PD are rare and estimated at 5-10%.17 In rare instances, bacteremia along with the development of enterocutaneous fistulae have been reported in retrospective cohorts.18-20 Considering the technical success as well as the relative safe profile of the PD, the strategy has been routinely recommended as the initial therapeutic option in patients with IAA.

Medical Management

There is limited data regarding medical management alone in the absence of surgical or radiologic drainage of abscesses in Crohn’s disease. Antibiotics are often continued in these settings in longer courses with the need for re-imaging to assess recurrence or involution.

In a mixed cohort of patients without Crohn’s disease, Kumar and colleagues performed a retrospective study at a single center assessing the factors associated with successful medical practicalgastro.com management in patients presenting with intra-abdominal abscess.21 In a cohort of 114 patients treated with parenteral antibiotics and bowel rest, 61 (54%) had clinical response and were discharged without percutaneous drainage. Of these patients, 58 had no documented evidence of recurrence. Factors associated with successful drainage included abscess size and admission presentation with fevers. Although this study showed the potential for successful management, clinical applicability is limited by its retrospective, single-center design as well and lack of inclusion of patients with CD.

A subsequent study, specifically assessed different management strategies IAA in patients with CD in a multicenter European retrospective study.22 In a cohort of 128 cases, 54 patients (40%) were treated solely with antibiotics. Of note, 77.8% of the patients treated with antibiotics were also co-managed with corticosteroids. The efficacy of this strategy was reported at 63%. Predictors of treatment failure with medical therapy included the need for immunosuppressant therapy, associated fistula visualized on imaging, and abscess size. Management with bowel rest and antibiotics may be a potential option in patient with uncomplicated, small collections, unamenable to percutaneous drainage. From the data provided in studies above, the recurrence rates with medical therapy alone continues to be reported at 37- 50%. The patient cohort that may best respond to antibiotics is unknown and at this point management solely with medical therapy is likely best attempted in a group of patients with expert consultation with infectious disease specialists and colorectal surgery.

Surgical Management

Historically, the management of IAA in CD involved surgical drainage. Currently, the estimated rates of surgery as a first line management approach to abscess range from 7%-25% in CD.23, 24 Surgical drainage of an abscess often involves not only the evacuation of the abscess contents, irrigation with lavage, and debridement but often resection of the bowel and creation of an ostomy.

Surgical management has shown to have significant technical success in the management of abscess. In an early study, Garcia and colleagues compared the long-term outcome of medical, percutaneous, and surgical management of abscess in 51 patients with Crohn’s disease presenting to a single, tertiary care center over a 10 year period.25 Of these patients, 10 were treated medically, 7 were provided with percutaneous drainage, and 34 underwent surgical drainage. Abscess recurrence occurred in 50% of patients treated with medical therapy alone, 67% in patients treated with percutaneous drainage, and in 12% of patients treated surgically. Although this suggested the superiority of potential surgical management as a strategy, the authors did not delineate the size or other aspects of the abscess. Additional studies have also suggested lower rates of abscess recurrence in patients treated initially with surgery.22,26

Nevertheless, surgical drainage is not often an innocuous process. In frail patients, often malnourished from the catabolic burden of a chronic inflammatory process, risks of surgery include postoperative complications related to anastomotic leak and wound infection. Moreover, surgery is non-curative and rates of recurrence of CD in the absence of post-operative management continues to be high. Considering this, surgical management for IAA in CD is often utilized in cases not amenable to medical management or percutaneous drainage. Specifically, surgical drainage is often preferred in patients with IAA in locations unable to be accessed through percutaneous drainage, patients with multiple abscesses or large abscess, patients with long-standing or medically refractory disease, or patients with disease associated with stricture.

Comparisons Between Percutaneous and Surgical Drainage

The evidence comparing percutaneous drainage of Crohn’s related IAA compared to surgical drainage is limited by study design. Considering the overall low incidence of abscess formation, the feasibility of a randomized comparative study may not be possible. Despite biases and the inherent heterogenous nature, several retrospective observational studies can provide guidance in comparing PD to surgical drainage. An overview of the pivotal studies comparing PD and surgical drainage with major conclusions is provided in Table 1.

The largest study comparative study reported the Mayo clinic experience including a total of 95 patients with CD treated for IAA.27 In this cohort, 55 patients underwent PD and 40 underwent surgical drainage. The study reported a median follow up of 3.5 years. Of the cohort that underwent surgical drainage, 22.5% had either a high severity of illness marked with hemodynamic instability or multiple abscesses; 17.5% had obstructive symptoms. The mean abscess size in the PD cohort was 6.9 cm and 7.4 cm in the surgical cohort.

The results of the study demonstrated that there was not a significant difference in the probability of abscess recurrence in the surgical group (20.3%) compared to PD (31.2%). In total, there were 25 cases of abscess recurrence, 17 occurred in the medical group and 8 in the surgical group. Abscess recurrence occurred in the first month of abscess drainage in 66% of patients. There was no significant difference in the rates of early abscess recurrence between cohorts. Twelve patients in the percutaneous group eventually requires surgical resection during the follow up period. Both a history of perianal disease as well as active ileal disease were significantly associated with abscess recurrence. In contrast, the use of an anti-TNF, as monotherapy or in combination, was protective against abscess recurrence.

Additional retrospective studies have compared the surgical drainage to PD. The results of these studies were summarized in a recent meta-analysis, incorporating six studies and 333 patients, in whom percutaneous drainage was provided to 44.7% of patients and surgical drainage was provided to 55.3% of patients.28 The range of follow up reported in the meta-analysis was 12-43 months. In contrast to the study by Nguyen and colleagues, the authors reported that PD significantly increased the likelihood of abscess recurrence compared to surgical drainage. The pooled proportion of patients who initially underwent PD that eventually required surgery was 70.7%. The remaining minority, 29.3%, of patients was able to avoid surgery. There was no significant difference between the complication rates.

Success of PD is often dependent on Crohns’ disease history, abscess characteristics and associated complications.29 A potential reason for the difference in the results presented by Nguyen and colleagues compared to the metaanalysis may be due to the heterogeneity in patient population and evolving expertise in PD. Of note, initial pre-operative PD followed surgery has been suggested as a cost-effective strategy with lower risks of complications compared to initial surgical drainage.30,31 Identifying the factors attributed with the greatest success in PD may provide an ideal strategy in patient allocation for PD or surgical drainage.

Several studies have suggested risk factors for failure of PD, including ileal disease, perianal disease, abscess size, utilization of corticosteroids, and multiple or multilocular abscesses. In a smaller study, Sahai and colleagues also reported that abscesses associated with fistulae were also associated with a higher risk of PD failure.19 In contrast, an initial spontaneous abscess responded favorably to PD compared to recurrent or post-operative fluid collections. Table 2 lists the factors associated with PD failure and Table 3 list factors associated with success of PD.

A recent study sought to specifically identify the factors associated with the avoidance of future surgery in patients with nonoperatively managed IAA.32 In a retrospective cohort of 121 patients who were provided with non-operative management, 36.4% were able to avoid bowel resection within two years of mandated follow up. Indications for surgery included not only persistent abscess but also refractory disease. Factors associated with surgery within two years of index hospitalization for IAA included an abscess size greater than 6 mm, length of active disease segment greater than 15cm, a stricture with evidence of pre-stenotic dilatation greater than or equal to 3cm, and bowel wall thickening greater than 6 mm in size. Neither biologic medications in combination or as monotherapy nor PD at index hospitalization influenced the risk of future surgery in the analysis; however, this was attributed to colinear adjustments associated with abscess size and disease activity characteristics. Of note, although corticosteroid use was not associated with future surgery, only 14 patients were continued on corticosteroids at doses greater than 20mg following index hospitalization, limiting statistical modelling.

Subsequent Medical Management

Following the control of abdominal sepsis through drainage, either surgical or through radiologic means, the use of immunosuppressant agents is often recommended. In the aforementioned, Nguyen study detailing the Mayo experience, twelve patients were started on immunosuppressive therapy on the same date as abscess drainage.27 Post-hoc analysis of randomized control data investigating the role of Anti-TNF in drained abscess have also suggested the lack of new abscess-associated complication in patients treated with anti-TNF therapy.33

In patients with abscesses that are not drained, caution should be taken in term of continuing immunosuppressant agents. In older case series, the use of corticosteroids was not explicitly associated with significant complications.19,34 These case reports have significant limitations in widespread application considering the small size of these studies, known risks of corticosteroid use, and subsequent trial suggesting conflicting results.22

Although presented in abstract for, a recent study assessed the role of Adalimumab in 117 patients with Crohn’s disease and IAA.35 Following the resolution of abdominal sepsis, patients were provided with Adalimumab. In the study, only eleven patients had PD prior to the start of anti-TNF therapy. Of note, at baseline imaging, the median size of the abscess 2.5cm at time of inclusion with a fistula tract identified in 58% of patients. The primary composite outcome, adalimumab success, was defined as the lack of corticosteroids at week 12, no abscess recurrence, no intestinal resection and the lack of clinical relapse in follow up by week 24. The outcome was met in 74% of patients. At least one serious adverse event was reported in 40 patients, and 9% of patients has either abscess recurrence or required intestinal resection in the follow up period.

Thus, although there is some evidence for the use of immunosuppressive therapy in the absence of drainage, caution should be exercised. Following control of abdominal sepsis; however, it is our practice to de-escalate corticosteroid therapy and institute combination therapy with anti-TNF and immunomodulator or alternative biologic.

Published Guidelines

Several guidelines have commented on the management of IAA in Crohn’s disease. The American College of Gastroenterology recommend abscess drainage prior to the initiation of treatment for Crohn’s disease, but American expert consensus does not weigh on the choice of initial drainage procedure and suggest either PD or surgical drainage as potential options.36 Both the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) recommend PD as the initial approach for al well-defined and accessible IAA in situations where expertise is available.37,38 Following adequate drainage, the ECCO experts suggest that medical management without surgery be considered with a low threshold for surgery be maintained. Additionally, the authors BSG guideline recommend against immediate resection in cases where surgical drainage is required.

Proposed Algorithm

Several algorithms for the management of IAA in Crohn’s disease have been proposed.30,39 The majority of these strategies incorporate cut-offs in abscess size as decision points to surgical or medical therapy. Considering newer relevant data, we propose a new algorithm for the management of IAA following drainage (Figure 1). The proposed algorithm incorporates not only abscess size, but patient and disease characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The natural history of Crohn’s disease is associated with the development of penetrating complications. IAA is a complication of Crohn’s disease that occurs in nearly 20% of patients. Although previously managed through surgical means, advances in imaging have resulted in an increased reliance on PD as an initial strategy for management. The evidence for the management of IAA is limited retrospective, cohort studies. Despite the recent advancements in PD, recent studies have suggested that roughly 30% of patients treated with PD are able to avoid future surgical resection. Algorithmic approaches to management should incorporate not only characteristics of the presenting abscess but also patient and disease associated aspects that may impart the greatest success of medical therapy with PD. Considering the evidence available, a multidisciplinary approach to the management of IAA is recommended, incorporating gastroenterology, colorectal surgery, radiology, and, potentially infectious disease.

References

1.Freeman HJ. Natural history and clinical behavior of Crohn’s disease extending beyond two decades. Journal of clinical gastroenterology 2003;37:216-219.

2.Louis E, Collard A, Oger AF, et al. Behaviour of Crohn’s disease according to the Vienna classification: changing pattern over the course of the disease. Gut 2001;49:777-782.

3.Thia KT, Sandborn WJ, Harmsen WS, et al. Risk factors associated with progression to intestinal complications of Crohn’s disease in a population-based cohort. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1147-1155.

4.Yamaguchi A, Matsui T, Sakurai T, et al. The clinical characteristics and outcome of intraabdominal abscess in Crohn’s disease. Journal of gastroenterology 2004;39:441-448.

5.Lee H, Kim YH, Kim JH, et al. Nonsurgical treatment of abdominal or pelvic abscess in consecutive patients with Crohn’s disease. Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the
Liver 2006;38:659-664.

6.Li G, Ren J, Wu Q, et al. Bacteriology of Spontaneous IntraAbdominal Abscess in Patients with Crohn Disease in China: Risk of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Bacteria. Surgical infections 2015;16:461-465.

7.Reuken PA, Kruis W, Maaser C, et al. Microbial Spectrum of IntraAbdominal Abscesses in Perforating Crohn’s Disease: Results from a Prospective German Registry. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis 2018;12:695-701.

8.Agrawal A, Durrani S, Leiper K, et al. Effect of systemic corticosteroid therapy on risk for intra-abdominal or pelvic abscess in non-operated Crohn’s disease. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 2005;3:1215-1220.

9.Alves A, Panis Y, Bouhnik Y, et al. Risk factors for intra-abdominal septic complications after a first ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a multivariate analysis in 161 consecutive patients. Diseases of the colon and rectum 2007;50:331-336.

10.Lindberg E, Järnerot G, Huitfeldt B. Smoking in Crohn’s disease: effect on localisation and clinical course. Gut 1992;33:779-782.

11.Reese GE, Nanidis T, Borysiewicz C, et al. The effect of smoking after surgery for Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008;23:1213-21.

12.Lau C, Dubinsky M, Melmed G, et al. The impact of preoperative serum anti-TNFalpha therapy levels on early postoperative outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease surgery. Ann Surg 2015;261:487-96.

13.Appau KA, Fazio VW, Shen B, et al. Use of infliximab within 3 months of ileocolonic resection is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes in Crohn’s patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1738-44.

14.Kunitake H, Hodin R, Shellito PC, et al. Perioperative treatment with infliximab in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis is not associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1730-6; discussion 1736-7.

15.Safrit HD, Mauro MA, Jaques PF. Percutaneous abscess drainage in Crohn’s disease. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 1987;148:859-862.

16.Ananthakrishnan AN, McGinley EL. Treatment of intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease: a nationwide analysis of patterns and outcomes of care. Digestive diseases and sciences 2013;58:2013-2018.

17.Golfieri R, Cappelli A, Giampalma E, et al. CT-guided percutaneous pelvic abscess drainage in Crohn’s disease. Techniques in
coloproctology 2006;10:99-105.

18.Rypens F, Dubois J, Garel L, et al. Percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscesses in pediatric Crohn’s disease. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 2007;188:579-585.

19.Sahai A, Bélair M, Gianfelice D, et al. Percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease: short and long-term outcome. The American journal of gastroenterology 1997;92:275-278.

20.Gervais DA, Hahn PF, O’Neill MJ, et al. Percutaneous abscess drainage in Crohn disease: technical success and short- and longterm outcomes during 14 years. Radiology 2002;222:645-651.

21.Kumar RR, Kim JT, Haukoos JS, et al. Factors affecting the successful management of intra-abdominal abscesses with antibiotics and the need for percutaneous drainage. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:183-9.

22.Bermejo F, Garrido E, Chaparro M, et al. Efficacy of different therapeutic options for spontaneous abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease: are antibiotics enough? Inflammatory bowel diseases 2012;18:1509-1514.

23.Hurst RD, Molinari M, Chung TP, et al. Prospective study of the features, indications, and surgical treatment in 513 consecutive patients affected by Crohn’s disease. Surgery 1997;122:661-7; discussion 667-8.

24.Muldoon R, Herline AJ. Crohn’s Disease: Surgical Management. In: Steele SR, Hull TL, Read TE, Saclarides TJ, Senagore AJ, Whitlow CB, eds. The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016:843-868.

25.Garcia JC, Persky SE, Bonis PA, et al. Abscesses in Crohn’s disease: outcome of medical versus surgical treatment. Journal of clinical gastroenterology 2001;32:409-412.

26.Lobatón T, Guardiola J, Rodriguez-Moranta F, et al. Comparison of the long-term outcome of two therapeutic strategies for the management of abdominal abscess complicating Crohn’s disease: percutaneous drainage or immediate surgical treatment. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2013;15:1267-1272.

27.Nguyen DL, Sandborn WJ, Loftus EV, Jr., et al. Similar outcomes of surgical and medical treatment of intra-abdominal abscesses in patients with Crohn’s disease. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American
Gastroenterological Association 2012;10:400-404.

28.Clancy C, Boland T, Deasy J, et al. A Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Drainage Versus Surgery as the Initial Treatment of Crohn’s Disease-related Intra-abdominal Abscess. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis 2016;10:202-208.

29.Alkhouri RH, Bahia G, Smith AC, et al. Outcome of medical management of intraabdominal abscesses in children with Crohn disease. Journal of pediatric surgery 2017;52:1433-1437.

30.da Luz Moreira A, Stocchi L, Tan E, et al. Outcomes of Crohn’s disease presenting with abdominopelvic abscess. Diseases of the colon and rectum 2009;52:906-912.

31.He X, Lin X, Lian L, et al. Preoperative Percutaneous Drainage of Spontaneous Intra-Abdominal Abscess in Patients With Crohn’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of clinical gastroenterology 2015;49:e82-e90.

32.Perl D, Waljee AK, Bishu S, et al. Imaging Features Associated With Failure of Nonoperative Management of Intraabdominal Abscesses in Crohn Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25:1939-1944.

33.Sands BE, Blank MA, Diamond RH, et al. Maintenance infliximab does not result in increased abscess development in fistulizing Crohn’s disease: results from the ACCENT II study. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2006;23:1127-1136.

34.Felder JB, Adler DJ, Korelitz BI. The safety of corticosteroid therapy in Crohn’s disease with an abdominal mass. Am J Gastroenterol 1991;86:1450-5.

35.Pineton de Chambrun G, Pariente B, Seksik P, et al. Adalimumab for patients with Crohn’s disease complicated by intra-abdominal abscess: a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis 2019;13:S616-S616.

36.Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Crohn’s Disease in Adults. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2018;113:481-517.

37.Adamina M, Bonovas S, Raine T, et al. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Crohn’s Disease: Surgical Treatment. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis 2019;14:155-168.

38.Lamb CA, Kennedy NA, Raine T, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2019;68:s1.

39.Feagins LA, Holubar SD, Kane SV, et al. Current strategies in the management of intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
2011;9:842-850.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #199

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome – What it Is and Isn’t

Read Article

Mast cell activation syndrome is a multi-organ, multi-symptom disorder characterized by clinical features and responses to medications that block mast cells. While some laboratory testing can be used to support the diagnosis, there are no diagnostic biomarkers for clinical use, which has hampered clinical care and research. Furthermore, lay literature and social media are outpacing the science, which has led to controversy with regards to diagnostic criteria and treatments. In this review, we will help to explain what mast cell activation syndrome is, and is not, with an emphasis on gastrointestinal manifestations and the therapeutic role of nutrition.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 45-year-old female was feeling well until she had the “flu” last winter. She subsequently developed episodic hives and facial flush, cramping abdominal pain, loose stools, fatigue, and palpitations. Many of her symptoms were improved with Benadryl, but were worsened by alcohol, hot showers, fragrances, and various foods and medications. She had an elevated metabolite for prostaglandin on a 24-hour urine collection during one period of symptoms.

INTRODUCTION

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome:Why There is Controversy

It has been a decade since idiopathic mast cell activation syndrome (i-MCAS) first appeared in the literature, described as an idiopathic syndrome where other conditions have been ruled out and additional criteria are met (see “what it is” below). Since that time, much progress has been made with regards to understanding which patients fit this diagnosis and stand to benefit from directed therapies.1 Unfortunately, the lack of validated disease biomarkers and objective testing has hampered the scientific study of the pathogenesis of this disorder; hence many questions remain as to what initiates and perpetuates the syndrome. Furthermore, well designed clinical trials to test new safe and efficacious therapies are difficult to design without objective endpoints and welldefined patient cohorts. The rise of patient self-help groups through social media and an extensive lay literature have given rise to a population of patients who may have chronic symptoms, but likely do not have i-MCAS and therefore may not be receiving the appropriate care.

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome:What it Is

Mast cell disorders are currently classified into “clonal” vs. “non-clonal” disorders. In clonal disorders, there is evidence of a well-defined mutation and resulting aberrant population of mast cells in the tissues. In the “non-clonal” disorder, no such abnormalities have been identified and/ or validated.2 The prototypic clonal mast cell disorder is systemic mastocytosis (SM), which has defined clinical diagnostic criteria and characteristic manifestations – namely a marked increase in the mutated mast cells in the various tissue compartments including the bone marrow, skin, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract.3,4 Many of the symptoms attributed to mast cell activation in the non-clonal forms are learned from the study of SM patients where there is substantial overlap in non-clonal and SM clinical presentations (e.g. symptoms and triggers of mast cell activation as well as responses to medical therapy to block mast cells).

I-MCAS is the primary “non-clonal” mast cell disorder that may best explain a given patient’s clinical presentation without evidence of a welldefined mutation. There are proposed diagnostic criteria that include classic symptoms of mast cell activation in two or more organ systems, such as skin, GI, and airway, refer to Table 1 that are made worse by predictable triggers (e.g. certain foods as discussed below, strong scents, temperature changes, stress, alcohol, certain medications).5 To confirm the diagnosis of i-MCAS, laboratory evidence in the form of an elevation above baseline in serum tryptase or metabolites of mast cell mediators (e.g. n’methylhistamine, prostaglandin F2-alpha, leukotriene-E4) during a period of increased symptoms should be present. Of note, the duration of increased mast cell activation symptoms may be variable from hours to days to weeks. Patients who are suspected of having i-MCAS, but who do not meet the laboratory criteria, may be considered to have “suspected MCAS.” In these patients, trials of directed therapies can continue, but only with ongoing testing for other conditions to better explain the presentation with repeat mast cell mediator testing during periods of symptoms. Studies are underway to determine whether certain features of the mast cells in the various tissue compartments (such as expression of cell surface receptors, protease content, and cell morphology) can serve as diagnostic biomarkers. Traditional biopsy tests (including intestinal) with stains to highlight the presence of the mast cells (e.g. CD117 (KIT), tryptase) have not yielded useful diagnostic information to date.

Since the proposed diagnostic criteria were published, subtypes of i-MCAS have emerged that may require specific therapies and treatments. Patients with i-MCAS may have concurrent anaphylaxis and/or additional conditions, most commonly:

  • the hypermobility form of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
  • any form of dysautonomia (namely the postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS])
  • mast cell activation due to an increased germline copy number of the tryptase TPASB1 gene now termed hereditary alpha-tryptasemia (HAT).6-9

The standard approach to treating the symptoms of mast cell activation is outlined in Table 2. Note that initial management in symptomatic patients is similar in all subtypes of i-MCAS.10 While medications are being initiated and titrated, adjunctive dietary modifications and therapies are instituted. GI symptoms, which are very common in i-MCAS and represent a significant portion of the morbidity these patients experience, are largely treatable with this treatment approach.11.12

Potential Role of Diet in MCAS

Individuals with mast cell disorders typically have a number of triggers for their mast cellrelated symptoms, including dietary factors. In order to better understand their prevalence, Jennings et al conducted an internet-based survey publicized to individuals with mast cell disorders, including SM and MCAS.1 Among the 420 valid responses (defined as those who answered at least some questions beyond the opening section for demographics and diagnosis), nearly half self-reported “food allergies,” yet only 23.2% had positive food allergy tests, indicating that the majority of food-related symptoms in these respondents may be related to mast cell activation itself or indirectly related to mast activation in the form of food intolerance. Of the 47 survey participants who identified dairy foods as a trigger, 44.7% identified milk, 19.1% cheese, and 6.4% yogurt. Additionally, 43 respondents identified cereal grains as a symptom trigger, with wheat and gluten most commonly cited. In 38 respondents, 34% reported food additives to be triggers such as preservatives (sulfites, benzoates, nitrates); monosodium glutamate and food dyes were also noted. In 32 respondents, more than half identified alcohol, wine more likely than beer, to provoke symptoms. Tomatoes, citrus, and strawberries were the most frequently mentioned produce-based trigger foods.

Supportive Nutrition for MCAS

While the data regarding dietary interventions for mast cell disorders is scant, there is often an overlap with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptomology (see “MCAS and IBS symptom overlap” below) and therefore similar dietary strategies may be used such as a trial of a low Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides, and Polyols (FODMAP) diet (LFD).

In a study assessing self-perceived food triggers in IBS, 58% noted GI symptoms from histamine-releasing foods or foods rich in biogenic amines.18 The role of histamine in the gut’s immunoregulatory pathways has not been fully elucidated. Food-derived histamine is associated with non-allergic food intolerance and food poisoning (scombroid). Interestingly, McIntosh et al. found a LFD intervention reduced urinary histamine levels 8-fold.19 This study suggests that a LFD intervention may play a role in reduction of histamine, a measure of immune activation. The LFD is a 3-phase diet intervention shown to effectively control digestive symptoms in about 50-70% of those with IBS.20-22 It is plausible that endogenous histamine, in addition to exogenous histamine, may play a role in the pathomechanism of IBS as well as i-MCAS in some cases. For diagnostic and symptom management purposes, a reduction in histamine-rich foods (Table 3) may be considered (if a patient exhibits an intolerance to high histamine foods as noted by food and symptom journaling and registered dietitian assessment). As with a LFD, a histamine elimination diet is not indicated long-term, but rather should be followed by a reintroduction phase to assess which foods are problematic and which are not.

Controlled studies are needed to identity a potential biomarker for histamine intolerance, as well as an up to date analysis of histamine content of food and a benchmark for the upper limit of histamine in a food that would most likely elicit a pharmacologic effect.

A referral to a dietitian with knowledge in food intolerance is strongly recommended in patients with i-MCAS to support adequate nutrition and help minimize risk of over-restriction, escalation of food fears, or disordered eating. Dietitians with expertise in food intolerance can be found on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics website’s section, Find an Expert (eatright.org/find-anexpert). Patients with mast cell disorders often exhibit a level of food fear that may offer some innate protection, such as prompting avoidance of some foods to mitigate symptoms (authors’ experience). However, this practice may be harmful and give rise to disordered or maladaptive eating. While not an overt eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia, disordered eating (significant food restriction, skipping of meals, and fasting) may escalate food related anxiety and stress contributing to nutritional risk and possibly stressinduced mast cell activation. Dietary interventions should include screening for disordered eating or overt eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia via tools such as the Nine Item Avoidant/ Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Screen (NIAS), to assess for Avoidant Restrictive Eating Disorder. The Eating Attitudes Test-26 (www.EAT-26.com) can be used to screen for an eating disorder, in an attempt to provide appropriate nutrition and psychological support for the patient’s overall well being when indicated.13,14

Although formal studies are lacking, the optimal diet for MCAS may be one containing whole foods with reduction of ultra-processed foods and avoidance of perceived triggers and intolerances including dairy products high in lactose, wheat and gluten-containing foods, and food preservatives and dyes. In clinical observation, cases of highly symptomatic i-MCAS where patients are on a very limited diet, an elemental diet can be considered while medications are titrated to manage the mast cell activation. It is possible that an elemental diet or partially hydrolyzed formula (e.g. Absorb Plus®, Kate Farms®) offers benefit by reducing allergen load, minimizing FODMAP carbohydrates, modulating the gut microbiome, and/or potentially reducing mast cell activation. However, mechanistic studies are clearly needed to better understand the pathophysiology of diet in individuals with i-MCAS. Nutritional interventions in those with i-MCAS should be individualized to find what works best for the patient’s total health.

When is it Not MCAS? MCAS and IBS Symptom Overlap

Mast cells have many known physiologic functions in the GI tract, so it is not surprising that a condition where there is aberrant activation of mast cells may lead to multiple GI symptoms and manifestations.

Furthermore, there have been many published studies to implicate mast cells in the symptoms of IBS. Patients with IBS have been found to have increased activation of mast cells in intestinal biopsies using various study methods compared to healthy controls.15 The symptom of abdominal pain in IBS has been associated with activated mast cells, where higher amounts of histamine have been detected near nerve cells in the colon.16 Endogenous histamine has also been linked as a mediator associated with the severity of symptoms in IBS.17

What differentiates i-MCAS from IBS is the presence of symptoms in more than one organ system. While several mast cell-specific medical therapies have been studied in IBS,23,24 there are no convincing data to suggest that these therapies will work in the typical IBS patient who perhaps does not exhibit any allergy-type or mast cell symptoms.

What is Histamine Intolerance?

Histamine intolerance (HI) is regarded as an imbalance of accumulated histamine and a reduced capacity for histamine degradation.25 Within the GI tract, exogenous histamine levels can be impacted by:

  • a reduction of diamine oxidase (DAO), the enzyme required to degrade dietary histamine
  • consumption of a histamine rich diet
  • and/or gut microbial metabolism of histidine, which may result in a potential histamine overload.

DAO is produced on the mature apical enterocytes on the upper intestinal villi. Gastroenteritis, small bowel inflammation, or a reduction in intestinal surface area may reduce production.26 Symptoms associated with histamine intolerance mirror those of mast cell activation disorders including: headache, urticaria, hypotension, facial flushing, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, vertigo, abdominal pain, congestion, rhinorrhea, and asthma (see Table 1).17,25 Different than i-MCAS however, these symptoms are only experienced with eating.

The histamine content of foods can be variable depending on the microbial composition of the food product. Different microbes have varying capacities to produce histamine; how the product is stored and prepared can also influence microbial growth.27 Fresh foods tend to be lower in histamine than the preserved, cured, or fermented counterparts. Alcohol has variable histamine levels with red wine generally yielding higher amounts compared to beer. Interestingly, many alcoholic beverages contain histamine and additionally suppress DAO production, potential resulting in a dual pathway for abnormal histamine regulation.28 Concurrent prevalence of low DAO activity and carbohydrate malabsorption was assessed in a recent retrospective analysis in individuals presenting with GI symptoms revealing that more than one-third of those diagnosed with carbohydrate malabsorption experienced HI. Individuals were considered positive for HI if they presented with a low DAO activity (< 10 mU/ml serum DAO) and symptoms such as nausea, bloating, and pain. In addition to its retrospective nature, this study has other limitations as the diagnosis of HI lacks standardized testing or definitive biomarkers.29 Plasma DAO and blood histamine levels are not always reproducible in the clinic setting.26 Presently, the diagnosis of HI is based on the following criteria30:

  • presentation of two or more histamine intolerance symptoms,
  • improvement with a low histamine diet
  • improvement with antihistamine medications.

Some general recommendations to reduce dietary histamine include reducing high histamine foods, freezing leftover protein rich foods to retard histamine production, and consuming fresh, minimally processed foods over ultra-processed foods (Table 3).

Other GI-Specific Diseases that are Not MCAS

An important part of the proposed diagnostic criteria for i-MCAS is that no other condition better explains the symptoms and manifestations of the patient. In those with prominent GI symptoms, appropriate tests should be undertaken to rule out inflammatory conditions (e.g. inflammatory bowel diseases, celiac disease, eosinophilic disorders), GI tract malignancies, or anatomic defects. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth31 may mimic symptoms of mast cell activation or be found concurrently in patients with MCAS. Although there is no published data, patients with MCAS report frequent exposure to antibiotics and may therefore have at least an intestinal dysbiosis. Bile salt diarrhea is also possible, especially in those patients who have had cholecystectomies and/or other abdominal surgeries in previous efforts to address patients’ symptoms.32 GI motility disturbances due to autonomic dysfunction should also be ruled out due to the overlap in patients with MCAS and dysautonomia. Bear in mind that MCAS patients can have more than one diagnosis.

Other Systemic Conditions that are Not MCAS

There is often a substantial delay in the diagnosis of i-MCAS and patients may experience symptoms for many years and undergo many tests and specialty consultations resulting in multiple diagnoses.

Chronic symptom disorders that may be confused with i-MCAS include chronic pain syndromes, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, and chronic symptom syndromes following infections or other exposures such as the chronic Lyme disease syndrome. Various auto-immune diseases, endocrinopathies, and psychiatric conditions should also be in the differential for i-MCAS, and if present, may better explain the patient’s presentation.

Summary Statements

The incidence and prevalence of i-MCAS may be increasing in many societies perhaps in parallel with other allergic and atopic conditions. With a current paucity of diagnostic biomarkers and robust clinical and scientific literature to support the pathology of mast cell activation in patients with the multi-symptom disorder, there is a lack of provider awareness of i-MCAS. Furthermore, the lay literature on the Internet, social media “experts”, and patient blogs are outpacing the science. We therefore have to remain faithful to the proposed diagnostic criteria for patients with suspected i-MCAS and continue to expand our research to be able to develop more objective biomarkers. Patients with i-MCAS do exist in your practice and we have outlined clinical management approaches that will undoubtedly help them.

References

  1. Akin C, Valent P, Metcalfe ΩDD. Mast cell activation syndrome: Proposed diagnostic criteria. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;126 (6):1099-1104.e4.
  2. Akin C. Mast cell activation syndromes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017;140(2):349-355.
  3. Valent P, Escribano L, Broesby-Olsen S, et al. Proposed diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected mastocytosis: a proposal of the European Competence Network on Mastocytosis. Allergy 2014;69 (10):1267-1274.
  4. Doyle LA, Sepehr GJ, Hamilton MJ, et al. A clinicopathologic study of 24 cases of systemic mastocytosis involving the gastrointestinal tract and assessment of mucosal mast cell density in irritable bowel syndrome and asymptomatic patients. Am J Surg Pathol 2014;38(6):832-843.
  5. Valent P, Akin C, Arock M, et al. Definitions, criteria and global classifications of mast cell disorders with special reference to mast cell activation syndromes: a consensus proposal. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;157(3);215-225.
  6. Akin C. Mast cell activation syndromes presenting as anaphylaxis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2015; 35(2):277-285.
  7. Kohn A, Chang C. The Relationship Between Hypermobility EhlersDanlos Syndrome (hEDS), Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2019 epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-019-08755-8
  8. Shibao C, Arzubiaga C, Roberts LJ, et al. Hyperadrenergic postural tachycardia syndrome in mast cell activation disorders. Hypertension 2005;45(3):385-390.
  9. Lyons JJ. Hereditary alpha tryptasemia: genotyping and associated clinical
    features. Immunol Allergy Clin North AM 2018;38(3):483-495.
  10. Weiler CR, Austin KF, Akin C, et al. AAAAI mast cell disorders committee work group report: mast cell activation syndrome diagnosis and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;144(4):883-895
  1. Jennings S, Russell N, Jennings B. et al. The Mastocytosis Society Survey on Mast Cell Disorders: Patient Experiences and Perceptions. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2014;2(1):70-6.
  2. Hamilton MJ, Hornick JL, Akin C, et al. Mast cell activation syndrome: a newly recognized disorder with systemic clinical manifestations. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;128(1):147-152
  3. Zickgraf HF, Ellis JM. Initial validation of the Nine Item Avoidant/ Restrictive Food Intake disorder screen (NIAS): A measure of the three restrictive eating patterns. Appetite 2018; 123:32-42.
  4. Eating attitudes test (EAT-26). 2009-2017. www.EAT-26.com
  5. Boeckxstaens GE. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2018 Apr; 14(4): 250–252.
  6. Barbara G, Stanghellini V, De Giorgio R, et al. Activated mast cells in proximity to colonic nerves correlate with abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2004;126:693–702.
  7. Smolinska S, Jutel M, Crameri R, et al. Histamine and gut mucosal immune regulation. Allergy 2014;69(3):273-281.
  8. Bohn L, Storsrud S, Tornblom H, et al. Self-reported food-related gastrointestinal symptoms in IBS are common and associated with more severe symptoms and reduced quality of life. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;(108):634-641.
  9. McIntosh K, Reed DE, Schneider T, et al. FODMAPs alter symptoms and the metabolome of patients with IBS: a randomized controlled trial. Gut 2017;66(7):1241-1251.
  10. Halmos EP, Power VA, Shepherd SJ, et al. A diet low in FODMAPs reduces symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2014:146(1):67-75.
  11. Eswaran SL, Chey WD, Han-Markey T, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Low FODMAP Diet vs Modified NICE Guidelines in US Adults with IBS-D. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(12):1824-1832.
  12. Barrett JS. How to institute the low-FODMAP diet. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32 Suppl 1:8-10.
  13. Klooker TK, Braak B, Koopman KE, et al. The mast cell stabilizer ketotifen decreases visceral hypersensitivity and improves intestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 2010;59(9):1213-1221
  14. Lobo B, Ramos L, Martinez C, et al. Downregulation of mucosal mast cell activation and immune response in diarrhea-irritable bowel syndrome by oral disodium cromoglycate: a pilot study. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5(6):887-897.
  15. Maintz L, Novak J. Histamine and histamine intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1185-1196.
  16. Rosell-Camps A, Zobetto S, Perez-Esteban G, et al. Histamine Intolerance as a cause of chronic digestive complaints in pediatric patients. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2013;105(4):201-207.
  17. Doeun D, Davaatseren M, Chung MS. Biogenic amines in foods. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2017;26(6):1463–1474.
  18. Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R. The red wine provocation test: intolerance to histamine as a model for food intolerance. Allergy Proc 1994;15(1):27-32.
  19. Enko D, Meinitzer A, Mangge H, et al. Concomitant Prevalence of Low Serum Diamine Oxidase Activity and Carbohydrate Malabsorption. Canadian J Gastro Hepatol 2016;2016:4893501.
  20. Tuck Caroline J, Biesiekierski JR, Schmid-Grendelmeier, et al. Food Intolerances. Nutrients 2019;11:1684.
  21. Quigley EMM. The spectrum of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Curr Gastro Rep 2019;21(1):3
  22. Vijayvargiya P, Camilleri M. Update on bile acid malabsorption: finally ready for prime time?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2018;26(3):10
  23. Hamilton MJ. Nonclonal Mast Cell Activation Syndrome A Growing Body of Evidence Immunol Allergy Clin N Am 2018;38;469-481.
  24. Molderings GJ, Haenisch B, Brettner S, et al. Pharmacological treatment options for mast cell activation disease. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2016;389(7):671–694.
  25. Spencer M, Chey WD, Eswaran S. Dietary Renaissance in IBS: Has Food Replaced Medications as a Primary Treatment Strategy? Curr Treat Op Gastroenterol. 2014;12:424-440.
  26. Sánchez-Pérez S, Comas-Basté O, Rabell-González J, et al. Biogenic Amines in Plant-Origin Foods: Are They Frequently Underestimated in Low-Histamine Diets?. Foods. 2018;7(12):205.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

Hepatitis C Screening of Infants

Read Article

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections are extremely common in the United States and rates of new infections are increasing. In particular, as the incidence of pregnant women with HCV increases, there is a concern that infants with this exposure risk often are missed as such infants are not being followed for infection (although guidelines exist). The authors of this study performed a retrospective cohort study of mothers and their infants using Medicaid data from Tennessee. These mother-infant dyads from 2005 to 2015 included mothers from 15 to 44 years of age who were enrolled in Medicaid 30 days before delivery. Their infants also had to be enrolled in Medicaid within 30 days with continued enrollment until 2 years of age. HCV testing on these children was complete if data demonstrated the presence of HCV antibody, HCV RNA, or HCV genotype testing. Besides determining if these infants were getting appropriate HCV testing, the authors also determined if national guidelines were being followed, specifically HCV antibody testing performed at or after 18 months of age or HCV RNA testing performed at or after 2 months of age.

During the study period, 384,837 mother-infant dyads were enrolled in the Tennessee Medicaid program, and 4072 of these mothers had HCV during pregnancy. Significant risk factors for HCV positivity during pregnancy included being white, tobacco use, co-positivity with hepatitis B virus, and co-positivity with HIV. Infants born to mothers with HCV positivity had a significantly lower birthweight, were more likely to be small for gestational age (SGA), and were more likely to have a history of neonatal ICU (NICU) admission. The prevalence of infants with exposure to HCV increased significantly throughout the study with 5.1 infants exposed to HCV per 1000 live births in 2005 and 22.7 infants exposed to HCV per 1000 live births in 2015 with 92.9% of the mothers of these children being white. Only 946 infants (23%) exposed to HCV had HCV testing in the first 2 years of life, and 354 of these infants (41%) had testing per recommended national guidelines. Infants exposed to HCV and who underwent testing were significantly more likely to have mothers who used tobacco and to have mothers with HIV coinfection. Infants who had HCV exposure and who had testing that followed recommended national guidelines were significantly more likely to be white, have an urban residence, have a history of maternal tobacco use, have a history of maternal HIV co-infection, have lower birth weight, have a history of SGA, have a history of NICU admission, and have more well child checks. Infants who were exposed to HCV and who were African American or who lived in rural areas next to metropolitan areas were significantly less likely to have HCV testing. In addition, infants exposed to HCV with a higher gestational age and born to mothers with a greater number of prior births had a lower rate of HCV testing.

This study demonstrates that correct testing for HCV infants in not adequate in Tennessee, and these findings may be similar to other regions in the United States. African American children and children who lived in rural regions were less likely to undergo adequate screening, suggesting that public health measures are needed nationally to ensure appropriate and timely testing.

Lopata S, McNeeer E, Dudley J, Wester C, Cooper W, Carlucci J, Espinosa C, Dupont W, Patrick S. Hepatitis C testing among perinatally exposed infants. Pediatrics. 2020, 145: e20192482; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2482

Download Tables, Images & References

MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

Three-year Safety Data Analysis Indicates No Pattern of Heartburn with Ibgard®

Read Article

Data from a 36-month, real-world, post-marketing study confirming the safety profile of IBgard® (PO-SST), a novel peppermint oil product in patented solid-state microspheres, is now available for review on the DDW e-poster website.

• In one of the longest-running post-marketing surveillance studies of its kind, involving an estimated 2.4 million users, data showed that IBgard® is a safe and well-tolerated option for managing IBS.

• No pattern of heartburn was seen with IBgard®. As noted in the 2018 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) IBS Monograph1 , among older, liquid-filled, “burst technology” peppermint oil products, heartburn is a common side effect. The 2018 ACG IBS Monograph called for a more distal delivery of peppermint oil.

• IBgard®, with its novel, triple-coated microsphere technology, provides more distal delivery by avoiding release in the stomach, by targeting the small intestine, and by then releasing over 4 hours.5 It thus avoids the problems of older PO products, particularly heartburn.

BOCA RATON, Fla. – IM HealthScience® (IMH) today announced that the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Safety Update at 36 months (IBSSU36) study is now available for review as an e-poster on the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) e-poster and e-paper web site:

https://ddw.apprisor.org/epsAbstractDDW.cfm?id=1

The peer-reviewed and published e-poster is titled, “36 MONTH SURVEILLANCE DATA CONFIRMS SAFETY PROFILE OF A NOVEL PEPPERMINT OIL FORMULATION FOR IBS (PO-SST).”

IBSSU36 is a real-world safety surveillance study reporting on the safety and tolerability profile of IBgard® and was conducted to determine if any issues, including heartburn or anal burning, were surfacing as a side effect. In the American College of Gastroenterology 2018 IBS Monograph, heartburn was noted as a side effect of conventional peppermint oil preparations.1 In the same 2018 Monograph, it was noted that heartburn is an issue because the IBS population has four times the heartburn as the general population.3 The authors of the study poster note that older, liquid-filled, burst technology peppermint oil products showed that as high as 26 to 29.7% of patients experience adverse events (AEs), heartburn being the most common.4,5 A key finding of this study is that no pattern of heartburn or anal burning was observed during the 36-month timeframe with IBgard®.

Commenting on the findings of the study, Brian Lacy, M.D., PhD, FACG, a leading gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic and the lead author of the study, said, “We know that peppermint oil improves the symptoms of IBS, but many older peppermint oil products can cause unwanted side effects, such as heartburn. IBgard®, with its targeted delivery to the small intestine, was shown in this study to avoid any pattern of heartburn or anal burning, even after 36 months and an estimated 2.4 million patients had taken the product.”

The 3-year data safety analysis also confirmed that no reports of serious adverse events and no significant pattern of non-serious adverse events had emerged. It is estimated that over 2.4 million individual patients used the product during the three-year surveillance period of October 5, 2015, to September 30, 2018.

“We are gratified that this important postmarketing study has been peer-reviewed and then published via a poster on the DDW website,” said Michael Epstein, M.D., FACG, AGAF, a leading gastroenterologist and Chief Medical Advisor for IM HealthScience. “It is important for health care professionals and patients to be aware of the excellent safety and tolerability profile of IBgard®.”

About IBSSU36

The Irritable Bowel Syndrome Safety Update at 36 Months (IBSSU36) is a real-world surveillance study reporting on the safety and tolerability profile of IBgard® among an estimated 2.4 million individual patients who used the product. An independent call center with pharmacovigilancetrained health care personnel in accordance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and global regulatory guidelines on properly reporting events was retained to receive and record IBgard® customer questions, product issues, and adverse events. The adverse events for this study were collected and processed from October 5, 2015, to September 30, 2018. An analysis of the data by reviewers showed that there were no reported serious adverse events associated with the use of IBgard® during this time frame.

About IBgard®

IBgard® is a medical food specially formulated for the dietary management of IBS. IBgard® capsules contain solid-state microspheres of peppermint oil, including its principal component l-Menthol, plus fiber and amino acids (from gelatin protein), in a unique delivery system.

With its patented Site-Specific Targeting (SST®) technology pioneered by IM HealthScience, IBgard® capsules release Ultramen®, an ultrapurified peppermint oil, quickly and reliably to the small intestine, where it is designed to release over 4 hours in a sustained release manner.2 The food nutrients in IBgard® (peppermint oil along with fiber and amino acids) may help reduce the low-grade, localized, often temporary, reversible inflammation found in some IBS patients and help normalize gut mucosal barrier function. Additionally, peppermint oil has been shown to help normalize intestinal transit time.6

IBgard® previously was studied in a pivotal, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multi-center trial called IBSREST™ †† (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Reduction Evaluation and Safety Trial). Patients suffering from IBS-D and IBS-M (alternating IBS-C and IBS-D) were included in the study. This important study was presented at DDW in May 2015 to a standing-room-only audience. The study findings were accepted after peer review and then published in the February 2016 issue of Digestive Diseases and Sciences, a leading, peerreviewed scientific journal.2,†† The data showed that IBgard® demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the Total IBS Symptom Score (TISS) in as early as 24 hours and at four weeks. The TISS represents a composite score of eight individual IBS symptoms.7 In a secondary analysis, IBgard® also showed efficacy among IBS-M patients.8 IBS-M has been observed to represent up to 74% of IBS patients.9,†

Additionally, results from a real-world observational study of 285 patients who took IBgard®, called IBSSACT™ †† (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Adherence and Compliance Trial), showed that there was a high level of patient satisfaction with the product even among those patients taking several capsules on a daily basis. One out of two IBS patients taking IBgard® needed only 1 to 2 capsules per day to obtain individualized relief from IBS symptoms. In addition, 75 percent of the patients felt relief of abdominal pain, discomfort and/or bloating within 2 hours, while 95 percent of patients reported relief within 24 hours after taking IBgard®. 10,†

Currently, there are limited options for patients with IBS that offer effective and rapid relief, especially during flare-ups. Also, no Rx drug has been approved for IBS-M.

Over 10,000 healthcare practitioners, including 3,000 gastroenterologists, are estimated to have already used IBgard® for their patients. For five consecutive years, IBgard® continues to be the #1 recommended peppermint oil for IBS among gastroenterologists nationwide by an overwhelming margin.11

Like all medical foods, IBgard® does not require a prescription, but it must be used under medical supervision. Only a physician can confirm suspected IBS. Many physicians are now recommending taking IBgard® 30-90 minutes before a meal, as it enables the supportive effect of IBgard® to start as early as possible.

IBgard® is available to patients in the digestive aisle at most Walmart, Target, CVS/pharmacy, Walgreens, and Rite Aid stores nationwide as well as in grocery stores across the country and on Amazon.

About IM HealthScience®

IM HealthScience® (IMH) is the innovator of IBgard® and FDgard® for the dietary management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and Functional Dyspepsia (FD), respectively. In 2017, IMH added Fiber Choice®, a line of prebiotic fibers, to its product line via an acquisition. The sister subsidiary of IMH, Physician’s Seal®, also provides REMfresh®, a well-known continuous release and absorption melatonin (CRA-melatonin) supplement for sleep. IMH is a privately held company based in Boca Raton, Florida. It was founded in 2010 by a team of highly experienced pharmaceutical research and development and management executives. The company is dedicated to developing products to address overall health and wellness, including conditions with a high unmet medical need, such as digestive health. The IM HealthScience advantage comes from developing products based on its patented, targeted-delivery technologies called Site-Specific Targeting (SST®). For more information, visit www.imhealthscience. com to learn about the company, or, www.IBgard. com®, www.FDgard.com, www.FiberChoice.com, and www.REMfresh.com.

About Digestive Disease Week®

Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) is the largest international gathering of physicians, researchers, and academics in the fields of gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and gastrointestinal surgery. Jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT), DDW 2020 was scheduled for May 2-5, 2020, in Chicago, but was canceled due to COVID-19 and the nationwide lockdown. More information can be found at www.ddw.org.

  1. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Chey WD, et al. American College of Gastroenterology Monograph on Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2018:S1–S18. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0084-x.
  2. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A Novel Delivery System of Peppermint Oil Is an Effective Therapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2016;61(2):560-571. doi:10.1007/s10620-015-3858-7.
  3. Lovell RM, Ford AC. Prevalence of gastro-esophageal reflux-type symptoms in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome in the community: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012;107(12):1793-1801. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.336.
  4. Khanna R, MacDonald JK, Levesque BG. Peppermint Oil for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of clinical gastroenterology. 2014;48(6):505-doi:10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182a88357.
  5. Mosaffa-Jahromi M, Lankarani KB, Pasalar M, Afsharypuor S, Tamaddon AM. Efficacy and safety of enteric coated capsules of anise oil to treat irritable bowel syndrome. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2016;194(November):937-946. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2016.10.083.
  6. Goerg KJ, Spilker T. Effect of peppermint oil and caraway oil on gastrointestinal motility in healthy volunteers: A pharmacodynamic study using simultaneous determination of gastric and gall-bladder emptying and orocaecal transit time. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2003. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01421.x.
  7. Cappello G, Spezzaferro M, Grossi L, Manzoli L, Marzio L. Peppermint oil (Mintoil) in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A prospective double blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Digestive and Liver Disease. 2007;39:530-536.
  8. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah S. Peppermint Oil with Site Specific Targeting is an Effective Therapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Mixed Bowel Habits. Internal Medicine Review. 2017;3(9):1-20.
  1. Hungin APS, Chang L, Locke GR, Dennis EH, Barghout V. Irritable bowel syndrome in the United States: Prevalence, symptom patterns and impact. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2005;21(11):1365-1375. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02463.x.
  2. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. Patient satisfaction with IBS symptom relief using a novel peppermint oil delivery system in a randomized clinical trial and in the general population. International Journal of Digestive Diseases. 2016;2(2):1-5. doi:10.4172/2472-1891.100027.
  3. IQVIA. ProVoice Survey IBgard Is the #1 Gastroenterologist Recommended Peppermint Oil For Patients with IBS; 2019 [Among gastroenterologists who recommended peppermint oil for IBS]. ††Based on IBSREST™ (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Reduction Evaluation and Safety Trial), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 72 IBS patients. Patients taking IBgard on a daily and proactive basis experienced a statistically significant reduction versus placebo in the total IBS symptoms score (TISS), including abdominal pain and discomfort, at 24 hours, with continued and expanding benefits at 4 weeks. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. A novel delivery system of peppermint oil is an effective therapy for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. After peer review, published in Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(2):560-571. doi:10.1007/ s10620-015-3858-7. §IBSSACT™ (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Adherence and Compliance Trial), a real-world, patient-reported outcomes trial published in a peerreviewed journal, showed IBgard efficacy in 1-2 hours. Cash BD, Epstein MS, Shah SM. Patient satisfaction with IBS symptom relief using a novel peppermint oil delivery system in a randomized clinical trial and in the general population. After peer review, published in Int J Dig Dis. 2016;2(2):1-5. †Individual results may vary. IBgard is protected by U.S. patents No: 8,808,736; 9,192,583; 9,393,279; 9,572,782; 9,707,260; 9,717,696; and 8,895,086. Additional patents are pending in the United States and other jurisdictions. Daily Gut-Health Gard™ is pending approval for a registered trademark of IM HealthScience. Calms the Angry Gut® is a registered trademark of IM HealthScience. Copyright © 2019 IBgard®. The information provided here is for educational purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for the advice of a physician or other healthcare professional. This information should not be used for diagnosing a health problem or disease. While medical foods do not require prior approval by the FDA for marketing, they must comply with regulations. It should not be assumed that medical foods are alternatives for FDA-approved drugs. Only doctors can definitively diagnose IBS. Use under medical supervision. Statements made in this release rely upon reviews of literature, input from IMH’s advisors, and IMH’s own expertise. There may always be other opinions or emphasis points. Some of the statements from different sources may not mesh with each other. There may be inadvertent inaccuracies that IMH is not aware of. There may be disparate views on the complex pathophysiology of FGIDs (Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders) and on diagnosis and treatment guidelines. Space limitations in this release only allow limited reference to some guidelines or practices which may or may not be fully agreed to by all scientific, medical, or regulatory experts. For any of IMH’s products, this release does not make or have any intent to make drug claims or any comparison or implied claims against FDA approved interventions for IBS-D and IBS-C. Any comments on any products are based on literature reviews and input from IMH’s own advisors. There may be others who have other points of view. Pre-clinical findings do not always correlate with clinical or real-world findings. The reader is urged to check all current information, including the latest website disclosures and/or package inserts, of any of the medical products mentioned here, as information, including government regulations, changes all the time. The statements of individual opinions are those of the individuals quoted and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of IMH. Please fully read all disclaimers/clarifications/ explanations. IMH disclaims any injury or alleged injury resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to here. Healthcare practitioners should use their independent, professional judgment in helping their patients best manage their FGID conditions. The company will strive to keep information current and consistent but may not be able to do so at any specific time. Generally, the latest information on IBgard can be found on the website.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Tenofovir Vs Entecavir in Treatment for Prophylaxis for HCC in Chronic HBV Infection

Read Article

To compare the effects of TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) vs Entecavir on HCC risk in a large cohort of patients with chronic HBV infection in China, a retrospective study of consecutive adults with chronic HBV infection who initially received treatment with Entecavir or TDF for at least six months from January 2008 through June 2018, patients who had cancers or liver transplantation before or within the first six months of treatment were excluded. Propensity score weighting 1:5 matching were used to balance the clinical characteristics between the two groups. Fine-gray model was used to adjust for competing risk of death and liver transplantation.

Data was analyzed from 29,350 patients, mean age 52.9 years, 18,685 men (63.7%). A total of 1309 were first treated with TDF (4.5%) and 28,041 were first treated with Entecavir (95.5%). TDF-treated patients were younger (mean age 43.2 years vs 53.4 years), and a lower proportion had cirrhosis (38 patients, 2.9% vs 3822 patients treated with Entecavir, 13.6%).

At a median follow-up time of 3.6 years after treatment began, 8 TDF-treated patients (0.6%), had 1386 Entecavir-treated patients (4.9%), developed HCC. Patients clinical characteristics were comparable after propensity score weighting. TDF treatment was associated with a lower risk of HCC than Entecavir treatment after that weighting (HR 0.36) and 1:5 matching (HR 0.39).

It was concluded in a retrospective analysis of 29,350 patients with chronic HBV infection in China that treatment with TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC than treatment with Entecavir, over a median follow-up time of 6 years.

Yip, T., Wong, V., Chan, H., et al. “Tenofovir is Associated with Lower Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma than Entecavir in Patients with Chronic HBV Infection in China.” Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 158, pp. 215-225.

Download Tables, Images & References

A CASE REPORT

Ileostomy Site Adenocarcinoma in a Patient with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a known risk factor for colonic and extracolonic malignancies. Patients with this autosomaldominant disease develop hundreds to thousands of colon and rectal adenomas during their second decade of life, most frequently due to a mutation on the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene.1 Most patients with FAP have a significant family history of colorectal cancer; however, around 25–30% have no known family history of the disease. Today, most patients with FAP undergo prophylactic proctocolectomy at an early age and require monitoring for other extracolonic manifestations of the disease such as duodenal carcinoma.

We report a case of a 70 year-old male with a history of prophylactic proctocolectomy 48 years prior to development of FAP, and subsequent pancreaticoduodenectomy for duodenal adenomatous changes. The patient presented with an adenocarcinoma of the ileostomy and underwent successful en bloc resection of the ileostomy site and terminal ileum.

Case Presentation

A 70 year-old male presented with a rapidly enlarging lesion at the end ileostomy (Figure 1). Biopsy in the office was positive for adenocarcinoma arising within a tubulovillous adenoma. He had a history of FAP managed with a proctocolectomy 48 years prior, transduodenal excision of polyps 22 years ago, and a pancreaticoduodenectomy 3 years prior to the current presentation for adenomatous changes at the ampulla of Vater. His last surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) six months ago was unremarkable, but no recent ileoscopy had been performed.

The patient was asymptomatic at presentation. Basic lab work and carcinoembryonic antigen were within normal limits. Preoperative chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) showed no signs of metastatic disease. A preoperative EGD and ileoscopy identified several gastric polyps and multiple polyps in the ileum. The largest ileal polyp was 6 mm with tubular histology and high-grade dysplasia. No Spigelman score can be given due to the patient’s previous pancreaticoduodenectomy.

En bloc resection of the ileostomy site, terminal ileum, and mesentery with reformation of an end ileostomy was performed (Figure 2). Final pathology demonstrated a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma arising from a tubulovillous adenoma with invasion into but not through the muscularis mucosa T1N0M0 (Figure 3). The surgical margins were free of tumor. Postoperative recovery was uneventful with no short-term recurrence, but the patient died within one year due to cardiac disease.

DISCUSSION

FAP is seen in 3–10 patients per 100,000 and affects men and women equally.1 It is a well-known risk factor for colon and rectal malignancies, which can develop a decade after polyps form, but less than 1% of all colorectal cancers are attributable to FAP. Genetic testing in patients suspected of FAP includes both APC and MUTYH genes, and prophylactic colorectal surgery is recommended in the late teens to early twenties.

Lifelong monitoring for extracolonic malignancies is necessary due to a 4–12% lifetime risk of developing duodenal cancer, 2% risk of medulloblastoma, 2% risk of papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, 1–2% risk of hepatoblastoma, and less than 1% risk of gastric or pancreatic cancers.2 Patients need upper endoscopy surveillance starting in their late teens to early twenties. Currently, there is insufficient high-level evidence to support routine small bowel screening distal to the duodenum. CT enterography or magnetic resonance imaging can be used for small bowel visualization especially in the setting of advanced duodenal polyposis. Additionally, inspection of the ileostomy and ileoscopy can be considered every 1–3 years.2 There are no official recommendations regarding capsule endoscopy, but it may be a useful tool in screening FAP patients due to their risk of distal small bowel adenomas.3

Adenocarcinoma of the ileostomy site is an uncommon sequela seen in patients with FAP, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn’s disease. Reported cases of any ileostomy malignancy occur a median of 25 years but have also been described within five years after its creation.4,5 There is a higher incidence of adenocarcinoma in ileostomies ranging from two to four per 1,000 patients compared to approximately seven per 1,000,000 developing small bowel malignancy.6 The etiology of this disease is still under speculation, but a likely mechanism is a combination of chronic inflammation and cell proliferation at the border of the skin and mucosa, leading to metaplasia.4,7 Common presenting symptoms include bleeding, bowel obstruction, or stoma appliance difficulties, but patients may be asymptomatic. Regular ileostomy examination with the stoma appliance removed is the most important tool for early diagnosis. The differential diagnoses for ileostomy abnormalities include carcinoma and benign adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps.

There are currently no accepted guidelines for management of small bowel or ileostomy site adenocarcinoma, but aggressive treatment offers a good prognosis.8 If a lesion is seen at the ileostomy site, biopsy can be safely completed during an outpatient clinic visit. After confirmation of carcinoma, staging with CT and endoscopy should be performed. Of note, metastatic disease to the lymph nodes was only reported in patients with the primary tumor size over 4 cm. Surgical management consists of en bloc resection of the ileum and ileostomy site and its recreation either locally or via laparotomy. At least 85% survival can be achieved with surgical treatment.8

CONCLUSION

Adenocarcinoma of the ileostomy site is a rare pathology that deserves consideration, especially in patients with a history of FAP or inflammatory bowel disease. We recommend that a thorough examination of the ileostomy be performed at the time of EGD surveillance. When suspected, biopsy of the ileostomy site lesion is required, and if it demonstrates adenocarcinoma, surgical evaluation, cancer staging, and resection are necessary. For tumors under 4 cm, local en bloc resection avoids the morbidity of a laparotomy.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Paul Casella, MFA, Office of Faculty Affairs and Development, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine for editorial assistance.

References

1. Half E, Bercovich D, Rozen P. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009;4:22.

2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal (Version 3.2019). https:// www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_ colon.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2019.

3. Tescher P, Macrae F A, Speer T et al. Surveillance of FAP: a prospective blinded comparison of capsule endoscopy and other GI imaging to detect small bowel polyps. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2010;8:3.

4. Hammad A, Tayyem R, Milewski PJ, Gunasekaran S. Primary adenocarcinoma in the ileostomy of a woman with familial adenomatous polyposis: a case report and literature review. J Med Case Rep 2011;5:556

5. Nikitin AM, Kapuller LL, Bondarev IuA, Markova EV, Mikhaĭliants GS. Cancer of the small intestine at the site of an ileostomy [in Russian]. Arkh Patol 1987;49(8):76-9.

6. Barclay TH, Schapira DV: Malignant tumors of the small intestine. Cancer. 1983,51:878-881.

7. Quah HM, Samad A, Maw A. Ileostomy carcinomas a review: the latent risk after colectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Colorectal Dis 2005;7:538-544

8. Metzger PP, Slappy AL, Chua HK, Menke DM. Adenocarcinoma developing at an ileostomy: report of a case and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51:604-609.

Download Tables, Images & References

Jojobet GirişmatbetcasibomcasibomcasibomGrandpashabetgrandpashabetcasibom girişGrandpashabetcasibommatbetcasibomMeritkingCasibomCasibomgrandpashabetcasibombetpasjojobet girişjojobetKickmatbetmatbetcasibominterbahisMadridbetMadridbetMadridbetJojobetgrandpashabetHoliganbet girişgrandpashabetJojobetcasibomgrandpashabetjojobetcasibomjojobetjojobetcasibomcasibom girişgrandpashabetholiganbetBetpasgrandpashabet güncel girişjojobetjojobet girişgrandpashabet