Management of low and high-grade dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: the gastroenterologists' perspective and current practice in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Colonic dysplasia is a precursor to colorectal cancer (CRC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is a risk of progression of both low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) to CRC over 5 years. The current British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines advocate colectomy when possible or at least colonoscopic surveillance every 6 months.

AIM: To obtain an overview of the gastroenterologists' perspective on various aspects of colonic dysplasia in IBD and to understand current management practice in the UK.

METHODS: A national postal survey of 551 gastroenterologists listed in the British Society of Gastroenterology Handbook 2003.

RESULTS: Some 56% of questionnaires were returned; 255 out of 551 completed questionnaires were included in the final analysis. A total of 70% considered LGD to be premalignant, whereas all considered HGD to be premalignant. Only 13% offered routine colectomy for LGD compared with 84% for HGD. More than a third felt that flat LGD might not have concurrent CRC, of which 95% performed surveillance colonoscopies in this group. A small proportion of the remaining gastroenterologists treated flat LGD surgically (13%), whereas 85% considered that LGD with dysplasia-associated lesion or mass (DALM) constituted a high risk of concurrent CRC, but only 52.5% offered total colectomy to this group. There was a wide variation in the frequency of surveillance for LGD in flat mucosa and DALM. A majority agreed that LGD progressed to HGD (82%) and CRC (75%). However, their perception of the risk of progression to either HGD or CRC over 5 years varied widely. All agreed that HGD may have coexistent CRC, and 98% thought it progressed to CRC. Patients were more likely to be treated with colectomy for flat HGD (77%) and HGD in the presence DALM (86%); 38% of gastroenterologists felt that over 30% of patients have coexistent CRC in HGD, and 10% continued to manage them conservatively.

CONCLUSION: There are wide variations in the perceptions and management of LGD in IBD in the UK compared with HGD, in which there seems to be more uniform agreement. The need for more research in this area and a national agreement on management is paramount. Until this is reached gastroenterologists will remain open to criticism and litigation.