Search

Patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) and their first-degree relatives (FDRs) have increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Patients with sporadic sessile serrated lesion (SSL) have risk for progression to CRC. Yet familial risks of common extracolonic cancers and even CRC in these cohorts are poorly understood. Our aim was to examine cancer risk for patients with SPS and sporadic SSL and their close and more distant relatives using a large population database.Patients with SPS (n = 59) from hereditary patient registries were eligible for study. Sporadic SSL (n = 754) and sex- and age-matched normal colonoscopy controls (n = 1,624) were selected from clinical data linked to the Utah Population Database. Cox models adjusting for the number of relatives, degree of relatedness, and person-years at risk were used to estimate CRC, extracolonic, and any-site adenocarcinoma/carcinoma cancer risk in patients and their relatives.Compared with controls, CRC risk was elevated 10-fold in patients with SPS (P = 0.04) and 5-fold in their FDRs (P = 0.001). Any-site adenoma/carcinoma risk was increased 2.6-fold in FDRs of patients with SPS. No elevated risks of other common extracolonic cancers were observed in SPS and family members. The FDRs, second-degree relatives, and third-degree relatives of patients with both SSL and adenomatous polyps exhibited a 50% increased CRC risk.Patients with SPS and their FDRs have an increased CRC risk, confirming other reports. Interestingly, patients with SSL were noted to have an increased risk of prostate cancer. Relatives of individuals with both sporadic SSL and adenomas, irrespective of size or dysplasia on examination, may have an elevated CRC risk, suggesting closer colonoscopy surveillance in this population.

Background: The outcomes, complications, and rates of secondary malignancies from radiation therapy (RT) are not known for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Methods: We queried the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (HGCR) for patients with FAP who received RT. Outcomes assessed included acute and late treatment toxicity and secondary malignancies. Results: We identified 15 patients undergoing 18 treatment courses. Median follow-up was 3.1 years after RT. Treated sites included rectal cancer, desmoid, prostate cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, medulloblastoma, gastric cancer, and glioma. Secondary tumors occurred in two patients: a medulloblastoma was diagnosed in a patient treated for glioma, and a desmoid tumor was diagnosed in a patient treated for rectal cancer. All nine patients treated with intra-abdominal or pelvic RT had prior prophylactic proctocolectomies, yet only one patient experienced grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 (CTCAE v4) toxicities were grade 1 in seven treatment courses (39%), grade 2 in five courses (28%), and grade 3 in two courses (11%). Conclusions: In this cohort, RT was well tolerated with adverse effects comparable with non-FAP patients. Secondary in-field tumors occurred in 2 of 15 patients and their increased risk in this cohort was likely due to prior predilection from FAP itself, although an increased role of RT cannot be ruled out.