Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_538_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Editors
- •Authors
- •Anal Canal Epithelium
- •External Anal Sphincter
- •Hemorrhoids
- •Perineal Body
- •Pelvic Floor Muscles
- •Puborectalis Muscle
- •Iliococcygeus Muscle
- •Pubococcygeus Muscle
- •Mesorectum
- •Presacral Fascia
- •Retrosacral Fascia
- •Waldeyer’s Fascia
- •Denonvilliers’ Fascia
- •Lateral Ligaments
- •Anorectal Spaces
- •Perianal Space
- •Intersphincteric Space
- •Submucous Space
- •Ischioanal/Ischiorectal Space
- •Supralevator Space
- •Retrorectal Space
- •Internal Anal Sphincter
- •Conjoined Longitudinal Muscle
- •Rectal Blood Supply
- •Superior Rectal Artery
- •Middle Rectal Artery
- •Inferior Rectal Artery
- •Cecum
- •The Appendix
- •Ascending Colon
- •Transverse Colon
- •Descending Colon
- •Sigmoid Colon
- •Rectosigmoid Junction
- •Blood Supply
- •Superior Mesenteric Artery
- •Inferior Mesenteric Artery
- •Venous Drainage
- •Lymphatic Drainage
- •Nervous Innervation
- •Embryology
- •Midgut Rotation
- •Non-rotation
- •Malrotation
- •Reversed Rotation
- •Omphalocele
- •Internal Hernias
- •Proximal Colon Duplication
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Hirschsprung’s Disease
- •Anorectal Malformations
- •Anal Stenosis
- •Membranous Atresia
- •Anal Agenesis
- •Anorectal Agenesis
- •Rectal Atresia or “High Atresia”
- •Persistent Cloaca
- •References
- •2: Colonic Physiology
- •Embryology
- •Colonic Anatomy
- •Introduction
- •Colonic Wall Anatomy
- •Epithelial Types
- •Sodium
- •Potassium
- •Aldosterone
- •Short-Chain Fatty Acid Absorption
- •Vitamin K Absorption
- •Colonic Innervation
- •Pain
- •Colonic Motility
- •Microbiome
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Anorectal Physiology
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Physiology
- •Normal Continence
- •Patient Positioning
- •Digital Rectal Examination
- •Anoscopy
- •Proctoscopy
- •Endoanal/Endorectal Ultrasound
- •Normal Defecation
- •Physiologic Testing
- •Anal Manometry
- •Pudendal Nerve Terminal Motor Latency
- •Defecography
- •Functional Anorectal Disorders
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Anorectal Pain
- •Urogynecological Considerations
- •References
- •4: Endoscopy
- •Introduction
- •Anorectal Examination
- •Flexible Endoscopy Techniques
- •Torque
- •Dithering/Jiggle
- •Air Aspiration
- •Slide-By
- •Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
- •Colonoscopy
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Special Considerations
- •Anticoagulated Patient
- •Sedation
- •Instrumentation
- •Colonoscopy Technique
- •Alternative Techniques
- •Chromoendoscopy
- •Narrow Band Imaging
- •Full-Spectrum Endoscopy
- •Changing Patient Position
- •Abdominal Pressure
- •Incomplete Colonoscopy
- •Complications
- •Procedural Complications
- •Perforation
- •Bleeding
- •Post-polypectomy Syndrome
- •Splenic Injury
- •Infectious Complications
- •The Endoscopy Unit
- •Endoscope Processing
- •Quality Measures
- •Withdrawal Time
- •Adenoma Detection Rate
- •Leasing vs Purchasing Endoscopy Equipment
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Forceps
- •Snare
- •Lifting
- •Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
- •Clip
- •Underwater EMR
- •Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
- •ESD Complications
- •ESD Technique
- •Postoperative Care
- •Endoscopic Suturing
- •Stabilization Platforms
- •Colonic Stenting
- •Stenting Technique
- •Stenting Anastomotic Leaks
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abdominal Surgery
- •Anorectal Surgery
- •Preoperative Testing
- •Laboratory Studies
- •Electrocardiogram
- •Chest X-Ray
- •Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
- •Cardiac Evaluation
- •Initial Workup
- •Additional Testing
- •Preoperative Anticoagulation
- •Coronary Stent Management
- •Bridging
- •AICD/Management
- •Pulmonary Assessment
- •Perioperative Steroid Management
- •Diabetes
- •Obesity
- •Malnutrition
- •Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
- •Substance Abuse
- •Alcohol
- •Tobacco
- •Opioids
- •Other Illicit Drugs
- •Immunosuppressive Agents
- •Assessing Frailty
- •Complete Geriatric Assessment
- •Frailty Scores
- •Prehabilitation
- •Exercise
- •Nutrition
- •Psychosocial Therapy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Enhanced Recovery Models
- •Education
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Smoking Cessation
- •Preoperative Nutrition
- •Preoperative Anemia
- •Perioperative Hyperglycemia
- •Bowel Preparation
- •In-hospital Preoperative Enhanced Recovery Elements
- •Multimodal Analgesia (MMA)
- •Intraoperative Enhanced Recovery Elements
- •Multimodal Analgesia
- •Intentional Fluid Management
- •Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches
- •Postoperative Enhanced Recovery
- •Multimodal Analgesia
- •Standard Discharge Criteria
- •Future Directions
- •Summary
- •References
- •8: General Postoperative Complications
- •Introduction
- •Risk Factors
- •Morbidities
- •Nutrition
- •Smoking
- •Preoperative Anemia
- •Sarcopenia
- •Obesity
- •Functional Exercise Capacity
- •Open Surgical Approach
- •Assessing Risk Factors
- •Addressing Risk Factors
- •Postoperative Complications
- •Gastrointestinal Complications (#1)
- •Ileus (Functional Bowel Obstruction)
- •Postoperative Small Bowel Obstruction (Mechanical Bowel Obstruction)
- •Hematologic Complications (#2)
- •Venous Thromboembolism
- •Infectious Complications (#3)
- •Surgical Site Infection (SSI)
- •Anastomotic Leaks
- •Wound Dehiscence
- •Other Infectious Complications
- •Pulmonary Complications (#4)
- •Postoperative Respiratory Failure
- •Pneumonia
- •Pulmonary Aspiration
- •Renal Complications (#5)
- •Acute Kidney Injury
- •Postoperative Urinary Retention
- •Cardiac Complications (#6)
- •Myocardial Infarction
- •Dysrhythmias
- •Neurological Complications (#7)
- •Perioperative Cerebrovascular Accidents
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Postoperative Delirium
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: Anastomotic Construction
- •Introduction
- •Operative Planning
- •Mobilization
- •Small Bowel Mobilization
- •Colonic Mobilization
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Special Mobilization Techniques
- •Retroileal Anastomosis or Ileal Mesenteric Window
- •Right Colon De-Rotation (Deloyer’s Procedure)
- •Perfusion
- •Low Pelvic Anastomosis
- •Sutured Anastomosis
- •Stapled Anastomosis
- •Compression Ring Anastomosis
- •References
- •10: Anastomotic Complications
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Risk Factors
- •Diagnosis
- •Outcomes After Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Fistula
- •Blind Loop Syndrome
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •References
- •Anal Fissure
- •Medical/Pharmaceutical Treatment
- •Topical Agents
- •Botulinum Toxin Injection
- •Operative Treatment
- •Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy (LIS)
- •Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Local Advancement Flaps
- •Atypical Fissures
- •Anal Fissure, Conclusion
- •Anal Stenosis
- •Symptoms
- •Evaluation
- •Treatment
- •Nonoperative Treatment
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Rectal Advancement Flap
- •Y-V Advancement Flap
- •V-Y Advancement Flap
- •Diamond (Rhomboid) Flap
- •House Flap
- •U Flap (Island Flap Anoplasty)
- •Rotational S Flap
- •Technical Aspects
- •Flap Aftercare
- •Prevention
- •Anal Stenosis, Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cryptoglandular Pathophysiology
- •Cryptoglandular Abscess
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Acute Fistula Management
- •Post-drainage Care
- •Post-drainage Antibiotics
- •Anal Fistula
- •Presentation/Symptoms
- •Fistulography
- •Computed Tomography (CT)
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
- •Endoanal Ultrasound (EAUS)
- •Treatment Strategies
- •Fistulotomy
- •Setons
- •Draining Seton
- •Cutting Seton
- •Fibrin Glue
- •Fistula Plug
- •Endorectal Advancement Flap (ERAF)
- •Novel Surgical Therapies
- •Fistula Tract Laser Closure (FiLaC™)
- •Video-Assisted Anal Fistula Treatment (VAAFT)
- •Stem Cell Therapy
- •Recommendation
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Diagnostic Evaluation
- •Transanal Approach
- •Transperineal Approach
- •Posterior Approach
- •Transabdominal Approach
- •Other Approaches
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •15: Rectovaginal Fistula
- •Obstetrical
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Cryptoglandular
- •Radiation Injury
- •Surgical Techniques
- •Perineal Approach
- •Episioproctotomy
- •Transverse Perineal Repair
- •Transrectal Approaches
- •Rectal Sleeve Advancement
- •Vaginal Approach
- •Tissue Transposition Repairs
- •Bioprosthetic Products
- •Abdominal Approaches
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Pilonidal Disease
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Managing Patient Expectations
- •Nonsurgical Treatment
- •Antibiotics
- •Phenol
- •Fibrin Glue
- •Surgical Treatments
- •Complex Surgical Treatment
- •Karydakis Flap
- •Rhomboid Flap (aka Limberg Flap)
- •Cleft Lift Flap (Bascom Procedure)
- •Minimally Invasive Treatments
- •Trephination
- •Wound Healing Adjuncts
- •Hidradenitis Suppurativa
- •Introduction
- •Treatment
- •Medical Therapy
- •Topical Therapy
- •Systemic Antibiotics
- •Biologics
- •Other Medical Therapies
- •Laser Therapies
- •Surgery
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Etiology
- •Fecal Soilage
- •Dermatologic Diseases
- •Diagnostic Approach
- •Laboratory Testing
- •Treatment
- •First Encounter
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anorectal Immunology
- •Asymptomatic
- •Symptomatic
- •Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections
- •Chlamydia
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Lymphogranuloma Venereum
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Gonorrhea
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Syphilis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Chancroid
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Donovanosis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Herpes Simplex Virus
- •Genital Warts
- •Giant Condyloma
- •Molluscum Contagiosum
- •Ectoparasitic Sexually Transmitted Diseases
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •19: Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia
- •Introduction
- •Incidence
- •Epidemiology
- •Progression
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Expectant Management
- •Topical Therapies
- •Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA)
- •5-Flurorouracil (5FU)
- •Cidofovir
- •Imiquimod
- •Local Ablative Therapies
- •Wide Local Excision
- •Treatment Summary
- •Surveillance/Prevention
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •20: Anal Cancer
- •Physical Examination
- •Radiologic Evaluation
- •Anal Anatomy
- •Perianal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
- •Anal Canal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
- •Chemotherapy
- •Radiation Therapy
- •Inguinal Lymph Node Metastases
- •Surgery
- •Surveillance
- •Anal Adenocarcinoma
- •Verrucous Carcinoma
- •Melanoma
- •Perianal Paget’s Disease (Intraepithelial Adenocarcinoma)
- •Basal Cell Carcinoma
- •Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •21: Presacral Tumors
- •Introduction
- •Anatomic Considerations
- •Clinical Presentations
- •Physical Examination
- •Imaging Studies
- •Preoperative Biopsy
- •Tailgut Cysts
- •Enterogenous Cysts
- •Teratomas
- •Chordomas
- •Meningoceles
- •Neurogenic Tumors
- •Osseous Tumors
- •Miscellaneous Lesions
- •Currarino Syndrome
- •Management
- •Multidisciplinary Team
- •Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Surgical Approach
- •Posterior Approach
- •Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Sporadic Versus Inherited Colorectal Cancer
- •Sporadic Colorectal Cancer
- •Mutations
- •Chromosomal Alterations
- •Right vs. Left CRC
- •Young Onset CRC
- •Epidemiology
- •Management
- •Inherited CRC
- •Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Non-polyposis CRC)
- •Genetic Mutation
- •Lynch Syndrome Variants
- •Turcot Syndrome
- •Muir-Torre Syndrome
- •Familial CRC X
- •Screening Recommendations
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Medical Treatment
- •POLE/POLD1-Related Hereditary Cancer
- •Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
- •Genetic Mutations
- •Extracolonic Manifestations
- •Screening Recommendations
- •Attenuated FAP
- •Gardner Syndrome
- •Surgical Treatment
- •MUTYH-Associated Polyposis
- •Serrated Polyposis Syndrome
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes
- •Juvenile Polyposis
- •Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome
- •Cowden Syndrome
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Overview
- •Colorectal Cancer Precursor Lesions
- •Adenomas
- •Serrated Polyps
- •Colorectal Cancer Carcinogenic Pathways
- •Adenoma-Carcinoma Pathway
- •Serrated Pathway
- •Lesion Assessment
- •Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) Technique
- •Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Technique
- •Recurrence Following Endoscopic Resection
- •Surveillance After Endoscopic Resection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Fecal Sampling
- •Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Colonography
- •Colonoscopy
- •Delineating Colon Versus Rectum
- •TNM Staging
- •History
- •Physical Examination
- •Proctoscopy
- •Colonoscopy
- •Tumor Localization
- •Blood Work
- •Imaging
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Scan
- •PET-CT
- •Endorectal Ultrasound
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Pathologic Features: Pre-Resection
- •Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI)
- •Perineural Invasion (PNI)
- •Tumor Budding
- •Tumor Grade
- •Histologic Type
- •Pathologic Factors: Post-Resection
- •Extranodal Tumor Deposits
- •Mesorectal Grade
- •Tumor Regression Score
- •Clinical or Imaging-Based Factors
- •Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI)
- •Circumferential Radial Margin (CRM) Status
- •Tumor Location
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Tumor Localization
- •General Surgical Principles
- •No-Touch Technique
- •Lymphadenectomy
- •Mesocolic Excision
- •Adjacent Tissue or Organ Invasion
- •Technical Aspects
- •Hepatic Flexure Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Transverse Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Technical Aspects
- •Sigmoid Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Special Circumstances
- •References
- •26: Rectal Cancer: Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Introduction
- •Rectal Cancer Staging
- •Adjuvant Radiation
- •Neoadjuvant Radiation
- •The Foundation Trials
- •Short- vs Long-Course Radiation
- •Total Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy (TNT)
- •Rationale
- •Systemic Chemotherapy Alone
- •Pathologic Complete Response
- •Consolidation vs Induction Chemotherapy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •27: Rectal Cancer: Local Excision
- •Introduction
- •Patient Selection
- •T1N0
- •Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis
- •Tumor Budding
- •Techniques
- •Transanal Excision
- •Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
- •Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS)
- •Complications
- •Oncologic Results
- •T1 Cancer
- •T2 Cancer
- •Salvage Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •28: Rectal Cancer: Nonoperative Management
- •Introduction
- •Rationale
- •Accidental Versus Intentional WW
- •Baseline Stage
- •Tumor Location
- •Endoscopic Features
- •Radiological Studies

396
S. R. Kelley and E. J. Dozois
52. Berstock JR, Bunni J, Thorpe PL.Caution: laparoscopic biopsy of a
large pelvic mass may result in disaster. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.
2012;19(5):651–3.
53. Cheng C, Tao B, Bai S, Gao G, Li S, Shang A.Anterior sacral
meningocele: a new classication and treatment using the dorsal
transsacral approach. Spine. 2020;45(7):444–51.
54. Hébert-Blouin MN, Sullivan PS, Merchea A, Léonard D, Spinner
RJ, Dozois EJ.Neurological outcome following resection of benign
presacral neurogenic tumors using a nerve-sparing technique. Dis
Colon Rectum. 2013;56(10):1185–93.
55. Alderete J, Novais EN, Dozois EJ, Rose PS, Sim FF.Morbidity and
functional status of patients with pelvic neurogenic tumors after
wide excision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(11):2948–53.
56. Freier DT, Stanley JC, Thompson NW.Retrorectal tumors in adults.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1971;132(4):681–6.
57. Randall RL. Giant cell tumor of the sacrum. Neurosurg Focus.
2003;15(2):E13. Review.
58. Baek SK, Hwang GS, Vinci A, Jafari MD, Jafari F,
Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Pigazzi A.Retrorectal tumors: a comprehensive literature review. World J Surg. 2016;40(8):2001–15.
59. Currarino G, Coln D, Votteler T.Triad of anorectal, sacral, and presacral anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137(2):395–8.
60. AbouZeid AA, Mohammad SA, Abolfotoh M, Radwan AB, Ismail
MME, Hassan TA. The Currarino triad: what pediatric surgeons
need to know. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(8):1260–8.
61. Crétolle C, Pelet A, Sanlaville D, Zérah M, Amiel J, Jaubert
F, Révillon Y, Baala L, Munnich A, Nihoul-Fékété C, Lyonnet
S.Spectrum of HLXB9 gene mutations in Currarino syndrome and
genotype-phenotype correlation. Hum Mutat. 2008;29(7):903–10.
62. Leonard D, Pendlimari R, Larson DW, Dozois EJ. Currarino
syndrome: typical images of a rare condition. Tech Coloproctol.
2010;14(3):289–90.
63. Pendlimari R, Leonard D, Dozois EJ. Rare malignant neuroendocrine transformation of a presacral teratoma in patient with
Currarino syndrome. Int J Color Dis. 2010;25(11):1383–4.
64. MacCarty CS, Waugh JM, Coventry MB, Cope WF Jr. Surgical
treatment of sacral and presacral tumors other than sacrococcygeal
chordoma. J Neurosurg. 1965;22(5):458–64.
65. Dozois EJ, Jacofsky DJ, Billings BJ, Privitera A, Cima RR, Rose
PS, Sim FH, Okuno SH, Haddock MG, Harmsen WS, Inwards CY,
Larson DW.Surgical approach and oncologic outcomes following
multidisciplinary management of retrorectal sarcomas. Ann Surg
Oncol. 2011;18(4):983–8.
66. Yang JC, Chang AE, Baker AR, Sindelar WF, Danforth DN,
Topalian SL, DeLaney T, Glatstein E, Steinberg SM, Merino MJ,
Rosenberg SA. Randomized prospective study of the benet of
adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas
of the extremity. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):197–203.
67. Feng M, Murphy J, Grifth KA, Baker LH, Sondak VK, Lucas DR,
McGinn CJ, Ray ME.Long-term outcomes after radiotherapy for
retroperitoneal and deep truncal sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys. 2007;69(1):103–10.
68. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, Costa J, Baker A, Brennan M,
DeMoss EV, Seipp C, Sindelar WF, Sugarbaker P, Wesley R.The
treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: prospective
randomized evaluations of (1) limb-sparing surgery plus radiation
therapy compared with amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 1982;196(3):305–15.
69. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft-tissue sarcoma
of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Sarcoma Meta-analysis
Collaboration. Lancet. 1997;350(9092):1647–54.
70. Raut CP, Pisters PW.Retroperitoneal sarcomas: combined- modality
treatment approaches. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94(1):81–7.
71. Dozois EJ, Malireddy KK, Bower TC, Stanson AW, Sim
FH.Management of a retrorectal lipomatous hemangiopericytoma
by preoperative vascular embolization and a multidisciplinary surgical team: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):1017–20.
72. Witherspoon P, Armitage J, Gatt M, Sagar PM. Laparoscopic
excision of retrorectal schwannoma. Dis Colon Rectum.
2010;53(1):101–3.
73. Duclos J, Maggiori L, Zappa M, Ferron M, Panis Y.Laparoscopic
resection of retrorectal tumors: a feasibility study in 12 consecutive
patients. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(4):1223–9.
74. Fong SS, Codd R, Sagar PM.Laparoscopic excision of retrorectal
tumours. Color Dis. 2014;16(11):O400–3.
75. Zhou JL, Wu B, Xiao Y, Lin GL, Wang WZ, Zhang GN, Qiu
HZ. A laparoscopic approach to benign retrorectal tumors. Tech
Coloproctol. 2014;18(9):825–33.
76. Manabe T, Koba R, Nagayoshi K, Sadakari Y, Fujita H, Nagai S,
Ueki T, Nagai E, Nakamura M. Laparoscopic excision of neurogenic retrorectal tumors. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017;10(2):223–6.
77. Cataneo J, Cataldo T, Poylin V. Robotic excision of retrorectal
mass. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(10):1811–3.
78. Hove MG, Gil JM, Rodríguez TS, Lomas ÁF, Casajús JP, LópezFarré A, Guijarro JJ.Laparoscopic approach to tailgut cyst (retrorectal cystic hamartoma). J Minim Access Surg. 2019;15(3):262–4.
79. Mullaney TG, Lightner AL, Johnston M, Kelley SR, Larson DW,
Dozois EJ.A systematic review of minimally invasive surgery for
retrorectal tumors. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(4):255–63.
80. Bohm B, Milsom JW, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Church JM, Oakley
JR. Our approach to the management of congenital presacral
tumors in adults. Int J Color Dis. 1993;8(3):134–8.
81. Cody HS 3rd, Marcove RC, Quan SH. Malignant retrorectal
tumors: 28 years’ experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center. Dis Colon Rectum. 1981;24(7):501–6.
82. Maddah G, Abdollahi A, Etemadrezaie H, Ganjeifar B, Gohari B,
Abdollahi M, Hassanpour M.Problems in diagnosis and treatment
of retrorectal tumors: our experience in 50 patients. Acta Med Iran.
2016;54(10):644–50.

Sporadic andInherited Colorectal
Cancer: How Epidemiology
andMolecular Biology Guide
Screening andTreatment
SeanC.Glasgow andKarinM.Hardiman
22
Key Concepts
• Colorectal cancer is caused by the accumulation of a variety of genetic alterations in colonic mucosa.
• Colorectal cancer can be hereditary or sporadic (not
inherited). Both forms share many of the same genetic
alterations.
• Multiple hereditary forms of colorectal cancer have an
expected phenotype due to the genetic alteration that
increases the likelihood of the cancer.
• Screening algorithms for colorectal cancer differ between
hereditary and sporadic cancer based on the time expected
for an adenoma to become a carcinoma in that patient.
• Hereditary forms of colorectal cancer are more commonly
seen in patients with young onset colorectal cancer.
• Treatment algorithms for hereditary colorectal cancer are
directed towards removal of the cancer and decreasing
future risk of additional cancers.
Introduction
This chapter outlines the basic molecular biology of both
inherited and sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC). An understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying CRC is
important for clinicians, as it explains the epidemiology of
the disease and often informs treatment decisions.
Sporadic Versus Inherited Colorectal Cancer
CRC is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Cancer can either be inherited, meaning that it is
S. C. Glasgow
Washington University School of Medicine, Department of
Surgery, St. Louis, MO, USA
K. M. Hardiman (
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Surgery,
Birmingham, AL, USA
e-mail: khardiman@uabmc.edu
*)
passed down genetically within the patient’s family or sporadic, meaning that it was not inherited. This is somewhat
simplied because there are clearly families with multiple
members with CRC such that it is likely that they carry a
genetic propensity for the disease, but no known genetic
alteration can be identied on testing. The cause is likely
either a genetic alteration that is yet to be identied or a collection in an individual of low-penetrance alterations that
each increase risks to a lesser degree. This level of complexity is beyond the scope of this chapter. Most CRCs are considered sporadic, and the genetics of sporadic cancer, in
many ways, mirrors that of inherited CRC.
Sporadic Colorectal Cancer
Approximately 80% of CRC is considered sporadic [2].
Sporadic cancers are caused by genetic alterations in the tissue that becomes the tumor, whereas inherited cancers are
caused by genetic alterations within the entire patient (germline mutations) that then secondarily lead to further alterations within the tissue that becomes the tumor. These
alterations are typically in the same genes and pathways, but
the pace and age at which they occur differ.
Epidemiology ofSporadic CRC
CRC is the third most common cancer in the United States
and globally [1, 3]. Approximately 47% of cases are in
women [3]. Most new CRC cases are in those over age 65
(58%), but 39% of females and 45% of males are diagnosed
under age 65. Mean age of colon diagnosis is 68 for men and
72 for women, whereas the mean age of diagnosis of rectal
cancer is 63 for both men and women. CRC incidence and
mortality vary by ethnicity, with the highest rate in Alaskan
Natives (2010–2013 incidence of 91 per 100,000) and
African Americans (49 per 100,000) and the lowest in Asian
Americans (32 per 100,000). The accumulation of genetic
alterations causing CRC is thought to progress over several
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
S. R. Steele et al. (eds.), The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_22
397

398
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
years. CRC is most commonly located in the right colon
(41%) or the rectum (28%) [3]. Right-sided lesions are more
common in older patients, and distal tumors are more common in younger patients. Current endoscopic screening
guidelines for average risk patients recommend starting at
age 45 with repeat every 10years if patients are not found to
have adenomas. These are based on the typical time to progression from an adenoma to a carcinoma [4].
Risk Factors forSporadic Colorectal Cancer
The underlying causes of CRC are not clear but likely are an
interplay between predisposing genetic factors and lifestyle,
dietary factors, and environmental and other exposures
including the gut microbiome. Individual studies as well as
multiple systematic reviews support the role of diet as a risk
factor for the development of CRC.Vieira etal. performed a
meta-analysis of 111 studies and showed that the risk of
CRC increases by 12% for every 100g/day increase in intake
of red and processed meat and 7% for every 10g/day of alcohol intake but decreases 17% for every 90 g/day of whole
grains and 13% for every 400g/day of dairy [5]. The particular mechanism whereby diet alters risk of CRC is not known
but could, in part, be via changes in the microbiome. The gut
microbiome differs signicantly between patients with and
without CRC [6]. The changes in the microbiome of patients
with CRC are more similar to those in people who have a diet
high in red meat. In addition to dietary factors, sedentary
lifestyle and obesity have been associated with most types of
cancer. Increased physical activity to levels concordant with
national guidelines resulted in a deceased relative risk of
CRC of approximately 19% in a recent meta-analysis [7].
The mechanism whereby sedentary lifestyle predisposes to
CRC may be via altered metabolism and oxidative stress [8].
Molecular Biology ofSporadic Colorectal Cancer
Genetic mutations accumulate in the colon and rectum over
time as cells replicate in the mucosa of the bowel due to a
combination of exposure and somatic alterations. These
alterations can be nucleotide changes in the coding region of
genes causing the product of these genes to be dysfunctional
(as in the case of tumor suppressors), increased function of
oncogenes, copy number changes where chromosomes are
amplied or deleted, or epigenetic alterations causing altered
transcription of genes through promoter methylation
(Table 22.1). In general, sporadic CRC can be split into
hypermutated tumors, which often have over 1000 mutations
and very few copy number changes, and non-hypermutated
tumors with fewer mutations and more copy number changes
[9]. Because cellular functions are caused not just by individual proteins but by groups of them working together in a
pathway, alterations in individual genes can be assessed
across known pathways to identify important pathways. In
CRC, the recurrently altered pathways are in WNT, MAPK,
Table 22.1 Sporadic colorectal cancer molecular genetics
Sporadic colorectal cancer
Topic Summary
Genetic
alterations
Pathways/
genes
Consensus
molecular
subtypes
CIN chromosomal instability, MSI microsatellite instability, CIMP CpG
island methylator phenotype, EMT epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, CNV copy number variation
CIN: Accumulation of CNV with varied
karyotypes from cell to cell and LOH leading to
loss of tumor suppressor genes and mutations in
key driver genes
CIMP: Tumors are hypermutated, BRAF
mutation common, widespread epigenetic
promoter methylation of DNA
Gene point mutations, insertions, deletions:
60–1000’s of mutations per tumor
Wnt pathway; APC, TP53; TGF-β and EMT;
PI3K
CMS1: MSI immune, 14%, hypermutated, more
often right-sided
CMS2: Canonical, 37%, Wnt and MYC
activation, CNV high, more often left-sided
CMS3: Metabolic, 13%, CNV and CIMP low
CMS4: Mesenchymal, 23%, CNV high, EMT,
worse survival
PI3K, TGF-β, and p53 pathways. Genetic alterations are
only clinically relevant if they are shown to be biomarkers of
disease or if they can be targeted with treatment. Thus far,
most alterations in CRC are neither.
Adenoma toCarcinoma Pathway
In 1990, after in-depth studies of various stages of CRC,
Fearon and Vogelstein outlined a model of CRC development that proposed that the progressive accumulation of
alterations in the genome caused abnormal growth, starting
with normal colonic mucosa, progressing to adenoma and
then to adenocarcinoma. This early description described
alterations in the genome that were found commonly in certain genes in CRC via mutation, copy number change, or
hypomethylation [10]. They highlighted loss of tumor suppressors as well as alterations in oncogenes (Table 22.1).
Since that time, our understanding of CRC progression has
advanced, but many of the original concepts remain.
Mutations
With the advent of next-generation sequencing came the
ability to know the genetic alterations in solid tumors. For
any two patients with CRC, they likely share alterations in
only one or two genes, as there is substantial inter-tumor
heterogeneity in CRC. Because of the inherent genome
instability found in tumors, many of the mutations identied
in sequencing studies are not clinically consequential. Since
so many mutations may occur and they differ from one
tumor to another, predictive models are used to determine
whether alterations in any one gene are important. These
important mutations are called “driver mutations” meaning

22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
399
that they promote tumorigenesis and tumor progression.
The most common driver mutations in CRC have been
described in a series of publications and include mutations
in APC, TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA [9, 11]. For example,
APC is the most commonly mutated gene in CRC (72%
mutation rate in The Cancer Genome Atlas) and is important
as an early driver of adenoma formation. The APC protein
acts as a tumor suppressor. Alteration in APC causes accumulation of beta- catenin which translocates to the nucleus
and binds to LEF and TCF, causing transcription upregulating multiple pathways. In addition, loss or mutation of APC
can lead to transcriptional activation independent of
ß-catenin. TP53 mutation is the second most common alteration in CRC.It is more commonly altered in patients with
more advanced disease and is considered a late driver. It is a
tumor suppressor gene because its normal function is to
cause damaged cells to stop dividing until the DNA can be
repaired and to undergo apoptosis if the DNA cannot be
repaired. Mutation or loss of TP53 results in increased proliferation, decreased DNA repair, and decreased apoptosis.
Mutations of clinical relevance include RAS mutations
which occur in about half of patients with CRC including
KRAS and NRAS. These are important because patients with
RAS mutations do not benet from treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents [12].
Additionally, around 10% of patients have tumors containing mutations in BRAF, which is important because this is a
biomarker of worse survival in stage 4 patients [13].
Although BRAF inhibitors can improve outcome in other
tumor types with these mutations, in 95% of CRCs are resistant to BRAF inhibition via redundant alterations in the
MAPK pathway [14]. Another key pathway in CRC that is
especially important in metastasis is the epithelial- tomesenchymal transition (EMT). [15] EMT is the process
whereby epithelial cells acquire mesenchymal properties.
This allows the cells to change their architecture, interact
differently with their microenvironment, and become invasive. Proteins important in EMT in CRC are ZEB1 and
ZEB2, TGF-β, SNAIL, and vimentin. EMT and ZEB2 specically have such an important role in metastasis that small
trials have shown that addition of nuclear ZEB2 staining in
CRC to the staging system will improve patient stratication for prediction of outcome [16].
Most tumors contain 100–200 mutations, while about
15% of tumors contain 1000s of mutations. These hypermutated tumors typically harbor genetic or epigenetic alterations in the mismatch repair genes causing rapid accumulation
of mutations; thus, they are called hypermutated tumors. The
inherited form of this is called Lynch syndrome (LS) which
is caused by somatic mutations in the mismatch repair pathway genes and will be covered later in the chapter. Stage for
stage, these tumors have better outcome than CRCs without
a high mutation burden, and studies have shown that these
tumors are responsive to immunotherapy, whereas most nonLynch tumors are not [17].
In addition to the inter-tumor genetic heterogeneity, there
is also intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity whereby different
areas of a tumor and its associated metastasis can harbor different mutations and copy number changes because tumors
are made up of many genetically related sub-clones [18–20].
These sub-clones can have different abilities and drug resistance proles with substantive clinical implications.
Chromosomal Alterations
About 85% of CRCs harbor substantial chromosomal alterations. This is called chromosome instability or
CIN.Hypermutated tumors, which make up about 15% of
tumors, are the exception and have few copy number changes.
Common copy number variations in tumors affected by CIN
include loss of 8p, 17p, and 18q and gains in chromosomes
8q, 13, and 20q [9, 21, 22]. These gains and losses affect the
genes on these chromosomes which can have profound
implications for tumors. For example, the tumor suppressor
TP53 is on 17p which is commonly lost.
Epigenetic Alterations inColorectal Cancer
CpG islands are commonly found in the promoters of genes.
When these islands are hypermethylated, the downstream
gene can be silenced. This is the mechanism for many sporadic microsatellite unstable (MSI-high, or MSI-H) tumors
whereby the promoter of the mismatch repair MLH1 gene is
silenced by hypermethylation [23]. These tumors then lack
functional MLH1 protein and then accumulate genetic
mutations quickly because they lack this form of DNA
repair. This CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) is
found in sessile serrated adenomas and the cancers that arise
from them [24]. These tumors commonly harbor BRAF
mutations.
Molecular Subtypes ofCRC
Due to genetic heterogeneity and differences in the effects of
genetic mutations, gene expression is critical in tumor phenotype. In 2015, an international group of researchers published the most comprehensive study to date of gene
transcription data from 4151 patients [25]. Using multiple
classication algorithms and network clustering, they categorized tumors into four consensus molecular subtypes.
These subtypes, called consensus molecular subtype (CMS)
1–4, recognize the heterogeneity that makes up CRC
(Table 22.1). CMS1 tumors are hypermutated, MSI-high
tumors with a high immune inltrate. Tumors with an
increased number of copy number variations are CMS2–4.
CMS2 tumors have alterations described as canonical with
upregulation of WNT and MYC targets along with increased
expression of EGFR and HER2. CMS3 tumors are classied
by metabolic dysregulation and characterized by KRAS

400
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
mutations. CMS4 tumors have activated EMT with increased
TGFβ, extracellular matrix, and integrins. These classications have clinical relevance. CMS4 tumors have the worst
outcome and CMS2 have the best. The full ramications of
these classications are yet to come.
Right vs. Left CRC
The right and left colon have distinct embryologic origins as
well as differences in their microbiome and exposure to toxins such as bile acids, and thus, it is not surprising that they
would have somewhat different molecular phenotypes for
tumors developing in the two areas [26]. Right-sided tumors
are more likely to be hypermutated and are more common in
older patients, whereas left-sided tumors are more likely to
be found in younger patients. The sides have different distributions of the consensus molecular phenotypes with CMS1
and 3 subtypes being more common on the right and CMS2
and 4 more common on the left. This has therapeutic implications; whereby early, right-sided tumors have a better
prognosis, but once metastatic, they have a worse outcome
[27, 28]. This difference based on sidedness with metastasis
may be because of the high rate of BRAF mutations in metastatic right-sided tumors which have a poor prognosis.
Differences in survival between patients with right- and leftsided tumors may also be due to differences in response to
treatment. A 2018 study of response to bevacizumab and
cetuximab in metastatic CRC found that primary tumor site
was associated with response to biologic therapy [29]. Rightsided primary tumor location was associated with higher
mortality regardless of biologic therapy type. In patients
with wild-type KRAS tumors, treatment with cetuximab
beneted only those with left-sided primary tumors and was
associated with signicantly poorer survival among those
with right-sided primary tumors. This study highlights the
need for better understanding of prognostic factors to guide
treatment.
Early stage intraperitoneal colon tumors (stages I–II) are
typically treated with surgical resection alone, whereas later
stage tumors, which have demonstrated the ability to move
from where they started and invade nearby lymph nodes
(stage III) or distant organs (stage IV), are typically treated
with chemotherapy either as an adjunct to surgical resection
or as a primary palliative treatment. The typical chemotherapeutic regimen used to treat CRC is the combination of
5-eurouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX). This
combination yields survival benet for patients with stage III
and IV disease. Together, these drugs have a high response
rate in CRC. They are not molecularly targeted. Targeted
therapies directed at VEGF, EGFR, and kinases are available
for metastatic CRC. Many patients are resistant to these
drugs, likely due to redundancies between different pathways in CRC such that tumors can increase untargeted pathways to become resistant to targeted therapies.
Young Onset CRC
Epidemiology
In many countries around the world, there is an increasing
incidence of CRC in people under the age of 50, referred to
as young-onset CRC (YO-CRC) [30, 31]. The incidence of
YO-CRC has increased signicantly over the past 20years
for unknown reasons. The increase is predominantly leftsided, especially rectal. These patients often present with
symptomatic tumors due to the location, and the younger
they are, the more likely they are to present at an advanced
stage [32]. Due to the increased risk of CRC in young adults,
the American Cancer Society has decreased its recommended age to start screening in average-risk patients to
45 years old, but the recommendation by the National
Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) to start screening
at age 50 has not changed [33].
Screening forSporadic CRC
Screening guidelines for CRC directly relate to the time that
it takes for a polyp to become an adenocarcinoma and at
what age does the risk of developing CRC increase to the
point where screening is more efcacious than harmful. If an
average-risk patient has a low risk of CRC based on nding
no polyps on their initial screening colonoscopy, then another
intervention is likely not needed for 10 years. However,
when patients are found to have polyps, particularly when
there are multiple lesions or high-risk lesions, the patient has
proven that for genetic or environmental reasons, they are at
increased risk and their screening interval should be shorter.
Treatment forSporadic CRC
As will be discussed to a greater extent elsewhere, the treatment of CRC is based upon the stage at which it is identied.
Management
The assessment and treatment of patients presenting with
YO-CRC is similar to tumors in older patients except that
they are more likely to need urgent intervention for obstruction [34, 35]. YO-CRC patients have a high prevalence of
inherited CRC and should undergo testing. As little is known
about differences in treatment response in YO-CRC patients,
recommendations for management remain largely
unchanged.
Genetics ofYO-CRC
YO-CRC patients should undergo genetic testing, as heritable CRC will be found in 16–20% of YO-CRC patients [2,
36]. Many of these patients (75%) will not have a rst-degree
relative with CRC [2]. The increasing incidence of CRC in
those under the age of 50 does not appear to be due to an

22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
401
increase in inherited CRC, but this is difcult to distinguish
given changes in testing and evolution of understanding of
the causes of inherited CRC over time. The testing strategy
will vary by institution, but testing should be directed by
clinical phenotype and family history. If neither point to a
particular genetic syndrome, then broader panel testing
should be considered. Even for those patients where a heritable form of CRC is not found, the genetics of the tumor
itself differ from tumors in older patients. YO-CRC that is
sporadic typically has increased copy number change and is
microsatellite stable [37]. Lieu and colleagues assessed the
mutation rate across 403 cancer-related genes in 18,218
patients and found that those under the age of 50 had more
alterations in TP53 and CTNNB1 but fewer mutations in
APC, KRAS, BRAF, and FAM123B. How these and other
genetic alterations change the biology of YO-CRC and its
response to treatment is yet to be determined.
Inherited CRC
Inherited CRC is dened as CRC that is inherited through
the transfer of an increased risk for CRC due to genetic alterations that have been passed on from one’s parents. Each
inherited genetic alteration causes a somewhat variable phenotype, and each has CRC as a part of the multiple phenotypic expressions of that genotype. Inherited CRC falls into
two basic categories, those related to inherited polyposis and
those that are not due to polyposis. Patients with polyposis
develop polyps of the colon or rectum earlier and in greater
number than patients with sporadic polyps. Patients with
non-polyposis inherited CRC have an increased chance that
a polyp will progress more rapidly to a cancer than a sporadic polyp does. The genetic alterations that cause inherited
CRC have, in many cases, not been known before the phenotype of the disease was known, and so the syndromes are
often dened by their phenotype rather than the mutation
itself, as multiple different genetic alterations can lead to
similar phenotypes. When thinking of treatment of these
patients, it is important to remember to treat the phenotype of
the patient and family rather than only their mutation status
since a substantial percentage of patients with an apparently
familial cancer will not have a known mutation identied
[38]. This is likely due to our lack of knowledge of all the
genetic mutations that produce an increased risk phenotype,
rather than a true lack of a genetic alteration.
Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Non-polyposis CRC)
LS is the most common inherited CRC syndrome, with
Lynch-associated genetic defects identied in approximately
3% of CRC patients [39]. LS is inherited in an autosomal
dominant manner. Family history plays an important role in
identifying affected probands and prompting screening of at-
risk family members, although establishing the diagnosis of
LS requires testing for specic germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Once diagnosed with LS, recommendations for screening and treatment can be tailored
for the patient and their at-risk relatives.
The designation of hereditary non-polyposis CRC (or
HNPCC) denotes a familial CRC syndrome that meets certain criteria based on presenting factors and family history,
while the “LS” designation is reserved for patients in whom
germline genetic testing conrms specic mutations in
MMR genes. The term “non-polyposis” may be misconstrued to mean that LS-associated CRCs do not follow a typical progression from adenoma to invasive carcinoma. On the
contrary, most (but perhaps not all) CRCs in MMR-decient
patients do arise from adenomatous polyps. In fact, LS
patients have a similar incidence of adenomas as patients
with sporadic CRC [40]. However, LS-related carcinogenesis progresses more rapidly than sporadic carcinogenesis,
some developing from seemingly normal mucosa in as
quickly as a year [41].
Genetic Mutation
The genetic alteration causing malignancy in patients with
LS is a defect in the mechanisms for repairing acquired
genetic defects. During DNA replication, mistakes are made
at a rate of about 1 in every 10,000 bases which is called
mismatch. The four major genes responsible for mismatch
repair (MMR) are MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. In addi-
tion, deletions in the 3′ end of EPCAM leads to methylation
of the promoter region of MSH2, resulting in silencing of this
gene and clinical presentation similar to genetic mutation of
MSH2 itself. Patients with LS have an inherited defect in a
specic MMR gene and then acquire a “second hit” to their
remaining functional copy. This leads to complete loss of
function of MMR and subsequent accumulation of genetic
errors throughout the genome, leading to cancers mostly in
organs with a higher rate of cellular turnover such as the
colon, endometrium, stomach, and urologic system.
Tumors with defective MMR often display high levels of
microsatellite instability (MSI). Microsatellites are tandem
base pair repeats in the DNA, typically 1–3 nucleotides in
length. Impaired mismatch repair mechanisms allow these
microsatellites to proliferate. MSI can be detected using
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays. Cleaving of DNA
during PCR leads to irregular strand lengths at specic intervals and the designation of instability. By denition, tumors
that are high in instability measurements (MSI-H) have
greater than 30% instability at common loci.
Overall, approximately 15% of CRCs are MSI-H, reecting a possible deciency in MMR [42]. However, not all
MSI results from inherited mutations in MMR genes.
Approximately 70% of MMR deciency is caused by sporadic hypermethylation of MLH1, leading to suppressed

402
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
expression of this particular gene repair product and the subsequent accumulation of genetic damage. Hypermethylation
is strongly associated with a specic somatic mutation in the
BRAF oncogene (specically, the V600E mutation) which is
found in 69% of hypermethylated tumors; thus, loss of
expression of MLH1 should prompt further investigation of
the status of BRAF [43]. In general, if a patient has an
MLH1-decient tumor, and a BRAF mutation is found, it is
unlikely the patient has Lynch. However, if BRAF is normal,
the patient should be considered for germline mutational
analysis to look for Lynch-associated mutations.
Clinically, MMR gene function is assessed either by MSI
measurement using PCR or direct staining for specic gene
products using immunohistochemistry (IHC for MMR). MSI
and IHC testing has comparable sensitivity and specicity
for defects in MMR gene function; the preferred testing
approach is institution dependent, although IHC tends to be
less expensive than MSI testing and has supplanted MSI testing in many areas [44]. It is important to note that MSI and
IHC testing of the tumor is an evaluation of the phenotype of
the tumor itself, and thus neither MSI nor IHC testing conrms the diagnosis of LS.LS is conrmed only by nding
germline mutations on subsequent genetic testing.
Additionally, specic patterns of differential expression
may be observed. For instance, MLH1 and PMS2 proteins
function as a heterodimer; loss of expression of both indicates either an alteration in MLH1 due to somatic methylation (sporadic cancer) or MLH1 germline mutation (as in
LS) [45]. For these reasons, loss of expression of MLH1
should lead to further tumor-specic genetic testing.
Conversely, functional absences of MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2
typically arise from germline mutations.
Diagnosis andHistology
The initial identication of a “family cancer syndrome” by
Henry Lynch and colleagues in 1966 described two
Midwestern kindreds who exhibited multigenerational autosomal dominant inheritance of colorectal, endometrial, and
other malignancies [46]. The authors noted that family
members likely represented “carcinoma-susceptible genotypes.” In 1991, the clinical context was further rened by
the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC meeting
in Amsterdam, with the development of guidelines for identifying potentially affected individuals. These denitions
were broadened in 1999 by the Amsterdam II criteria to
include non-colonic malignancies. The Bethesda criteria
were subsequently developed to better rene which patients
may benet from additional workup with genetic testing.
Over the last two decades, additional research has focused
on improving the sensitivity and specicity of these parameters. Clinical online or downloadable risk prediction models exist for determining the likelihood a family member of
a patient with CRC has LS.Both PREMM5 (premm.dfci.
harvard.edu) and MMRpro (projects.iq.harvard.edu/bayes-
mendel/mmrpro) assess the risk in unaffected individuals.
In the setting of a suggestive family history, use of these
models may reduce unnecessary genetic testing [44].
Ultimately, routine MMR testing of biopsied or resected
CRCs has largely supplanted reliance on family history for
identifying potential LS.Figure 22.1 depicts one proposed
pathway for reliably conrming LS while eliminating possible confounding conditions. When establishing the diagnosis of LS, it remains important to advise patients of the
risk for other family members. Since LS is inherited in an
autosomal dominant manner, offspring of the proband have
a 50% chance of being affected. Genetic counseling and
germline testing are recommended for all immediate family
members of LS patients.
As previously mentioned, routine testing for MMR pathway function in resected colorectal and endometrial cancers
has become standard in most facilities. The most recent
guidelines from the NCCN and the American
Gastroenterological Association recommend universal
screening for MMR function in all resected CRC specimens
[44, 47]. This may be accomplished either with determination of MSI status or IHC staining for MMR proteins. Rectal
cancer biopsy specimens should also undergo routine screening, as rectal cancer patients are often treated with neoadjuvant therapy which may interfere with this analysis post hoc.
An exciting near-term alternative to sequential MSI or IHC
testing followed by germline evaluation is next-generation
sequencing of the tumor biopsy itself. Compared to traditional multiple sequential evaluation for LS (e.g., MSI/IHC,
followed by germline blood or buccal testing), up-front
tumor sequencing demonstrated equivalent specicity and
superior sensitivity for LS in a prospective cohort of CRC
patients [43]. Next-generation tumor sequencing has the
added benet of off-target testing for other mutations such as
KRAS/NRAS and DPYD that may inuence chemotherapeutic decision-making, and it may shorten the time to nal
diagnosis of LS, thereby providing the surgeon and patient
more complete information prior to surgery.
LS-related CRCs have certain phenotypic and histologic
ndings. MMR-decient cancers may present at an earlier
stage; decient MMR is seen in 20% of stage II, 11% of
stage III, and only 3.5% of stage IV CRCs [45, 48]. MMRdecient colon cancers more commonly arise on the right
side, although MMR-decient cancers in the descending or
sigmoid colon or rectal cancer may certainly occur.
Compared to sporadic tumors, LS-associated CRC is more
often poorly differentiated and presents with mucinous or
signet ring cell features on histology. Tumor-inltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are commonly observed as well [42]. The
robust immune response by TILs relates to the greater
expression of tumor-related antigens present in tumors with
high mutational rates, particularly the accumulation of

22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
Any new colorectal
cancer
Tumor testing for
MSI or IHC
Family history suggestive of
Lynch syndrome, but:
• No personal history of cancer,
• No known family history of
Lynch mutation, and
• Tumor tissue from affected
relative not available
403
IHC abnormalNormal
Missing MLH1
MLH1 promoter
methylation or BRAF
MLH1 promoter
hypermethylated or
BRAF mutation present
• Likely sporadic colorectal
cancer
• Consider other famillal cancer
syndromes
MSI high
Missing:
• PMS2 (and MLH1
present),
• MSH2, or
• MSH6
BRAF negative or
MLH1 promoter not
hypermethylated
>5% probability
Germllne genetic
testing
Positive for Lynch
mutation
• Colonoscopy every 1–2 years
• Consider aspirin
• Germline genetic testing for 1
degree relatives
st
Predictive model
≤ 5% probability
Negative
Consider other familial
cancer syndromes
Fig. 22.1 A proposed algorithm for evaluating patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome. (Used with permission from
Rubenstein etal. [44]. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier)
frameshift mutations that lead to synthesis of neoantigens
recognized by CD8+ T cells [42, 49].
diagnosed with a sebaceous tumor [51]. Use of immunosuppressant medications may unmask MTS as an underlying
condition.
Lynch Syndrome Variants
Turcot Syndrome
In addition to CRC, patients with Turcot syndrome develop
tumors of the central nervous system. Also termed “brain
tumor polyposis syndrome” or BTPS, Turcot syndrome can
be due to mismatch repair deciencies as seen in Lynch (type
1) or related to biallelic loss of the APC gene as seen with
familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (type 2) [50].
Glioblastoma multiforme is the most common neurological
cancer in type 1, while patients with type 2 may develop
medulloblastomas.
Familial CRC X
Patients who meet clinical guidelines for HNPCC based on
family history and age at presentation (e.g., Bethesda criteria) but have microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors are designated as having familial CRC X syndrome. Such patients
tend to present at a later age than those with LS, colon cancers occur distally more often, and they seemingly do not
have similar risk for extra-colonic malignancies [52, 53].
While the exact genetic mechanism is unknown, unlike LS
cancers which tend to have stable chromosomal length,
familial CRC X-related cancers demonstrate a high degree of
Muir-Torre Syndrome
chromosomal instability more similar to sporadic cancers.
Patients with Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) present with skin
structure-related neoplasms, predominantly sebaceous gland
tumors. While most commonly caused by loss of genes
involved in LS, approximately one-third of MTS may be
related to MUTYH-associated polyposis [51]. Sebaceous
adenomas and carcinomas are rarely seen outside of MTS,
and genetic counseling should be considered for any patient
Screening Recommendations
Large population-based retrospective studies suggest that
while routine biannual colonoscopy reduces the incidence of
CRC in LS patients, such surveillance still fails to prevent a
substantial number of cancers [39, 41, 54–56]. Conversely,
others have shown that high compliance with recommended

404
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
screening in LS patients yields cancer-specic survival rates
similar to non-affected family members [55]. A recent metaanalysis found that surveillance colonoscopy was associated
with a decreased incidence of CRC (OR 0.23) and decreased
CRC mortality (OR 0.06) compared to no screening [44]. On
average, the simple act of screening increased life expectancy by 7years. Specically, for people with mutations in
MLH1 or MSH2, the estimated risk of developing CRC over
the subsequent 5 years increases from 1in 71 for males (1in
102 for females) in their 20s to 1in 7 for males (1in 12 for
females) by age 50years [57]. In light of these ndings, most
experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy every
1–2years in patients diagnosed with LS.Carriers of MLH1
or MSH2 mutations should undergo screening colonoscopy
starting at age 20–25years; colonoscopy should commence
at age 30 for those with MSH6 and no later than age 35 for
PMS2 [58, 59].
Women with LS are at increased risk for developing
endometrial and ovarian cancers, and after CRC, endometrial cancer is the most common malignancy in LS.MSH6in
particular conveys elevated risk, with a lifetime incidence of
over 40% [58]. Based on these risks, female LS patients
should undergo annual bimanual exams with endometrial
sampling and transvaginal ultrasound starting around age
30–35years [58]. Such patients should also be counseled on
prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy (TAH/BSO) after completion of childbearing,
a recommendation supported by a large case-control study of
women with Lynch that found 100% risk reduction in subsequent gynecologic malignancy [60]. Strong consideration
should be given to concurrent TAH/BSO in LS patients
requiring colectomy. Although LS patients are at risk for
other malignancies besides colorectal and gynecologic cancers, the estimated lifetime risks for these other malignancies
do not exceed 3% regardless of gene mutation [61].
Transitional cell malignancies within the urinary system
occur more commonly relative to the average-risk population. Annual urinalysis effectively screens for urothelial cancers. Similarly, there is an elevated incidence of upper
gastrointestinal epithelial malignancy; a baseline esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with patient-tailored surveillance should be done at age 30–35years, and repeated every
2–3years, especially in individuals with a family history of
LS-related gastric cancers.
Surgical Treatment
Since knowledge of LS-related gene defects may inuence
recommendations for extent of surgery, it is preferable that
biopsies of clinical cancers obtained during colonoscopy
undergo routine testing for MMR gene products. If LS is
either genetically conrmed or there is a high index of clinical suspicion, patients should be counseled on the surgical
options for treating their colon cancer. Multiple studies favor
total abdominal colectomy over segmental resection in
patients with LS [62–65]. The most recent US Multisociety
Task Force on CRC and ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines
both recommend total abdominal colectomy with ileorectal
anastomosis in LS patients [58, 59].
Extended resection reduces the risk for developing secondary colorectal malignancy. A large registry-based cohort
study found that the risk of metachronous CRCs increases to
over 60% at 30 years [64]. This risk was reduced in LS
patients who underwent subtotal colectomy at the index
diagnosis. Notably, the observed risk for developing a metachronous colon cancer in the segmental resection group
approximated the de novo risk associated with LS, suggesting there was no risk reduction of subsequent malignancy
when patients undergo segmental resection only [59].
Kalady etal. found that 47% of patients meeting Amsterdam
clinical criteria for HNPCC developed advanced adenomas
or CRC following index segmental colectomy at a median
follow-up of 69 months, compared to only 19% of those
treated with total colectomy [62]. Similar results were
reported in a meta- analysis of almost 1000 LS patients;
metachronous cancers developed more commonly following segmental vs. total colectomy (23.5 vs. 6.8%, respectively; OR 3.7) [63]. However, no difference in overall
survival between the two groups was found. Others have
conrmed the lack of demonstrable survival benet following total colectomy [56].
Factors inuencing the decision for less radical resection
include tumor stage, age, fecal continence status, anticipated
reliability with surveillance examinations, and patient preference. There is little benet to prophylactic colectomy in
patients with incurable stage IV disease. Compared to segmental resection, total abdominal colectomy leads to signicantly greater stool frequency and adversely impacts social
function [66]. LS patients should be counseled on the anticipated bowel function prior to surgery. Another reasonable
option is subtotal colectomy and ileosigmoid anastomosis.
Patients would be expected to enjoy nearly the same risk
reduction as total abdominal colectomy and would still be
able to undergo surveillance via exible sigmoidoscopy
while having improved bowel function.
Patients with LS and rectal cancer may be a group who
are best served with segmental resection [59]. The alternative
of total proctocolectomy with or without IPAA presents a
pronounced functional difference from the patient perspective versus restorative proctectomy. However, the risk of
developing a second colorectal malignancy following proctectomy varies between 15% and 27% within the rst decade
postoperatively, even with regular endoscopic surveillance
[67, 68]. In addition to patient-specic features, factors such
as the necessity of pelvic radiation and the prospects for
sphincter salvage based on tumor location will impact this
decision.

22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
405
Given the signicant risk for metachronous CRC, regular
colonoscopy on an annual basis is recommended after colectomy [59]. Although no clear benet has been demonstrated
in terms of survival, such intensive surveillance may detect
malignancy at an earlier stage [64].
Medical Treatment
Patients with stage III MMR-decient CRCs are treated with
oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (e.g., FOLFOX),
similar to those with sporadic tumors [69, 70]. However,
single-agent 5-FU-based chemotherapy may be less efcacious in patients with LS, and no survival benet is seen in
stage II MMR-decient patients, even in the setting of other
high-risk features [71]. Interestingly, although CRCs with
mutated MMR genes present more commonly with poor differentiation and mucinous features, LS patients experience
better stage-matched survival and fewer recurrences compared to sporadic cancers, particularly for cancers in the
proximal colon [69, 70, 72, 73]. As mentioned above, MMR-
decient cancers express high levels of tumor-related neoantigens, prompting increased TIL presence [49]. An exciting
recent development is clinical application of immunemodulating drugs for ghting solid tumors. Pembrolizumab
and nivolumab are specic antibodies to the programmed
cell death protein 1 (PD-1); collectively, these drugs are
commonly termed immune checkpoint inhibitors [17]. Along
with ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte
antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), these immunotherapies are FDAapproved for treating metastatic CRCs with high microsatellite instability. Evidence suggests that most MMR-decient
tumors respond to immunotherapy but most MMR procient
tumors do not [17]. A conrmatory phase III trial is underway, comparing overall survival from colon cancers with
decient mismatch repair treated with adjuvant FOLFOX vs.
FOLFOX plus atezolizumab (a PD-L1 antibody) [45].
Long-term aspirin use seems to reduce the risk of subsequent CRC in LS patients. The CAPP2 randomized controlled trial investigated the utility of aspirin 600mg/day in
patients with LS [40]. Investigators found a 50% reduction in
cancer incidence in patients randomized to the aspirin interventional arm over a period of 4years. Notably, despite regular endoscopic surveillance, 7% of non-aspirin study
participants developed CRC during the study. Routine aspirin use is recommended by the American Gastroenterological
Association, while the American College of Gastroenterology
makes it a conditional recommendation until further evidence is obtained [44, 74].
POLE/POLD1-Related Hereditary Cancer
A relatively newly described syndrome is polymerase
proofreading- associated polyposis (PPAP). With an autosomal dominant inheritance and high penetrance, PPAP develops due to inactivating mutations in either POLE or POLD1
[75, 76]. These proteins are members of the highly conserved
DNA polymerase family of genes involved with both synthesizing and proofreading DNA. POLD1 also participates in
mismatch repair, and defective polymerase proofreading in
combination with decient MMR can contribute to the phenotype [77]. Patients with POLD1 or POLE mutations
exhibit limited adenomatous polyposis and are at increased
risk for CRC, and women with POLD1 mutations have elevated risk for endometrial and breast cancers [78]. No recommendations for screening exist, although frequent
colonoscopy and colectomy as indicated based on phenotype
seem reasonable [74].
Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) accounts for approximately 1% of CRCs. The syndrome is clinically dened by
the presence of over 100 synchronous colorectal adenomas.
FAP affects men and women equally and has a prevalence
between 2 and 3 cases per 100,000 worldwide [74]. Along
with extracolonic manifestations as described below, FAP
results in a near 100% risk for developing CRC by age
40years [79]. While there is a strong familial association, de
novo cases of FAP account for 25% of the disease, and these
patients typically have invasive malignancy at presentation.
Genetic Mutations
FAP is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner with near
100% penetrance. The syndrome is caused by monoallelic
mutation of the APC gene, a tumor suppressor located on
chromosome 5q21. Adenoma formation occurs when the
second gene copy is rendered nonfunctional through an
acquired mutation or loss. The fact that 85% of sporadic
CRCs (and 100% in FAP) harbor APC mutations reinforces
its central role in progression to malignancy.
Over 800 mutations in APC have been described.
Inactivating mutations most often occur towards the 5′ end
of exon 15in a portion termed the mutation cluster region.
Limited genotype-phenotype correlations exist predicting
the course of the disease. For instance, individuals with over
1000 polyps typically exhibit mutation in the mid-portion of
the gene (exons 1250–1464). Specic mutations between
exons 311 and 1444 predict congenital hypertrophy of the
retinal pigment (CHRPE, see below), and mutations after
1444 correlate with desmoid development [80]. Such correlations remain imperfect; although more common with
changes in specic coding regions, desmoid disease may
occur with almost any described APC mutation [81]. No reliable predictors for upper gastrointestinal adenomas are
known.
Extracolonic Manifestations
Several extracolonic conditions arise in patients with APC
mutations. As prophylactic colectomy for FAP has become
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
