Practice pattern of ileal pouch surveillance in academic medical centers in the United States.
OBJECTIVE
There is no consensus on whether, when and how to surveil an ileal pouch. The aims of this study were to evaluate experts' opinions and practice patterns on pouch surveillance and to determine if they were associated with detection of neoplasia.


METHODS
Eligible physicians were identified by searching the literature in MEDLINE and the physician list of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America and surveying by questionnaire.


RESULTS
Fifty-two eligible participants from 32 tertiary institutions were identified. Forty-one physicians (79%) felt that surveillance pouchoscopy was necessary, and 36 (69%) believed that pouchoscopy with biopsy was effective for the detection of neoplasia. Great variation exists with regard to the frequency of surveillance pouchoscopy. Eighteen physicians (35%) reported the detection of a total of 4 pouch dysplasias and 15 pouch cancers within the previous 5 years. The follow-up number of ileal pouches per year was significantly higher in the neoplasia detection group (50 vs 25, P = 0.041). Those who reported detecting neoplasia took even fewer biopsies from the ileal pouch body during the pouchoscopy examination (>3 biopsies per location, 44% vs 82%, P = 0.005). Multivariable analysis showed that the number of patients with ileal pouches followed up per year was the only independent factor associated with the detection of pouch neoplasia (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.1; P = 0.005).


CONCLUSION
Most experts agree with performing pouchoscopy and biopsy for surveillance of ileal pouch neoplasia, although the optimal interval varies greatly. The detection of pouch neoplasia appears to be related to patient volume and physician experience.
['Gu|Jinyu|J|', 'Remzi|Feza H|FH|', 'Lian|Lei|L|', 'Shen|Bo|B|']
neoplasia ileal pouch-anal anastomosis restorative proctocolectomy ulcerative colitis