Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
Lynch Syndrome: Similarities and Differences of Recommendations in Published Guidelines.
СтатьяОбзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abu-Freha Naim, Hozaeel Wael, Weissmann Sarah, Lerner Zlata, Ben-Shoshan Liza, Ganayem Roba, Katz Lior H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In this review, we aimed to compare the recommendations for Lynch syndrome (LS).
METHODS: We compared the LS's guidelines of different medical societies, including recommendations for cancer surveillance, aspirin treatment, and universal screening.
RESULTS: Most guidelines for LS patients recommend intervals of 1-2 years for performing colonoscopy, though there is disagreement regarding the age to begin CRC screening (dependent on status as a MLH1/MSH2 or MSH6/PMS2 carrier). There are inconsistencies between LS guidelines for gastric cancer surveillance. Most guidelines do not recommend routine surveillance of the pancreas and small bowel. Most but not all of the guidelines support endometrial and ovarian surveillance with transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy. Only two societies recommend urological surveillance, while others recommend surveillance among high-risk carriers with family history only. There is significant disagreement between the guidelines about the recommendation for limited or extended bowel resection among patients with CRC. Aspirin use is recommended by most societies, though some with reservations, and most of them recommend universal screening.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant disparities and disagreements in the guidelines and recommendations for patients with LS, causing confusion and difficulties for clinicians. Harmonization and cooperation are needed between the societies creating LS guidelines.
METHODS: We compared the LS's guidelines of different medical societies, including recommendations for cancer surveillance, aspirin treatment, and universal screening.
RESULTS: Most guidelines for LS patients recommend intervals of 1-2 years for performing colonoscopy, though there is disagreement regarding the age to begin CRC screening (dependent on status as a MLH1/MSH2 or MSH6/PMS2 carrier). There are inconsistencies between LS guidelines for gastric cancer surveillance. Most guidelines do not recommend routine surveillance of the pancreas and small bowel. Most but not all of the guidelines support endometrial and ovarian surveillance with transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy. Only two societies recommend urological surveillance, while others recommend surveillance among high-risk carriers with family history only. There is significant disagreement between the guidelines about the recommendation for limited or extended bowel resection among patients with CRC. Aspirin use is recommended by most societies, though some with reservations, and most of them recommend universal screening.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant disparities and disagreements in the guidelines and recommendations for patients with LS, causing confusion and difficulties for clinicians. Harmonization and cooperation are needed between the societies creating LS guidelines.