ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025
Screening at the scope: enhancing the role of pathologists in diagnosing gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Only a minority of patients at high likelihood of a gastrointestinal polyposis syndrome (GPS) are appropriately referred for workup. This proof-of-concept study evaluates a GPS screening rubric based exclusively on information in prior pathology reports and intended to facilitate pathologist engagement in GPS screening and referral. We sought to (1) identify patients who would benefit from further GPS workup, (2) assign a probable polyposis syndrome category (adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed), and (3) suggest a specific syndrome, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, whenever possible. We retrospectively tested the rubric against the pathology records of 108 patients (median, 6 reports/patient) with an established clinical diagnosis of GPS (adenomatous (N = 88), hamartomatous (N = 18), and mixed (N = 2) polyposis syndromes). Records were reviewed chronologically (mean, 4.4 min/patient) by a GI pathologist blinded to clinical history. Ninety-five patients (88%) had a positive GPS screen (N = 76 with an adenomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 17 with a hamartomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 2 with a mixed polyposis syndrome); all were assigned to the correct syndrome category. In a subset of cases, the histopathologic record suggested a specific syndrome (correct in 28 of 30 instances). Of 13 patients with a negative screen (failure to meet any rubric parameters), N = 6 (46.2%) had incomplete records. These findings demonstrate that when robust records are available, structured review of pathology reports is a sensitive and efficient tool for the identification of patients with a high suspicion of a GPS. While prospective studies are necessary, pathologists are indeed well positioned to play an expanded role in GPS screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40358740What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.