MacDonald, John K

Abstract Background and study aims There is limited consensus on the optimal method for measuring disease severity in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We aimed to systematically review the operating properties of existing endoscopic severity indices for FAP. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that utilized endoscopic outcomes or studies that evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic disease severity indices in FAP. Results A total of 134 studies were included. We evaluated scoring indices and component items of scoring indices, such as polyp count, polyp size, and histology. Partial validation was observed for polyp count and size. The most commonly reported scoring index was the Spigelman classification system, which was used for assessing the severity of duodenal involvement. A single study reported almost perfect interobserver and intra-observer agreement for this system. The InSIGHT polyposis staging system, which was used for assessing colorectal polyp burden, has been partially validated. It showed substantial interobserver reliability; however, the intra-observer reliability was not assessed. Novel criteria for high-risk gastric polyps have been developed and assessed for interobserver reliability. However, these criteria showed a poor level of agreement. Other scoring indices assessing the anal transition zone, duodenal, and colorectal polyps have not undergone validation. Conclusions There are no fully validated endoscopic disease severity indices for FAP. Development and validation of a reliable and responsive endoscopic disease severity instrument will be informative for clinical care and RCTs of pharmacological therapies for FAP.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis (ICIC) affects approximately 15% of cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. Although histological evaluation is potentially valuable for both the diagnosis of ICIC and evaluation of disease activity, use in clinical practice is heterogeneous. We aimed to develop expert recommendations to standardize histological assessment of disease activity in patients with ICIC. Using the modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology, an international panel of 11 pathologists rated the appropriateness of 99 statements on a 9-point Likert scale during two rounds of anonymous voting. Results were discussed between rounds using moderated videoconferences. There are currently no disease-specific instruments for assessing histological features of ICIC. The panel considered that colonoscopy with at least three biopsies per segment from a total of at least five segments, including both endoscopically normal and inflamed areas, was appropriate for tissue acquisition. They agreed that biopsies should be oriented such that the long axis of the colonic crypts is visualized and should be stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Histological items that the panel voted were appropriate to evaluate in ICIC included the degree of structural/architectural change, chronic inflammatory infiltrate, lamina propria and intraepithelial neutrophils, crypt abscesses and destruction, erosions/ulcerations, apoptosis, surface intraepithelial lymphocytosis, and subepithelial collagen thickness. The appropriateness of routine immunohistochemistry was uncertain. These expert recommendations will help standardize assessment of histological activity in patients with ICIC. The panel also identified the development and validation of an ICIC-specific histological index as a research priority.