Search

01 januari 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. DESIGN: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). CONCLUSION: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

Item does not contain fulltext, INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long-lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD, which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75: 41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.93), new-onset organ failure (aOR 2.26; 95% CI 1.45-3.55), infected necrosis (aOR 4.63; 95% CI 2.87-7.64), and pancreatic interventions (aOR 7.55; 95% CI 4.23-13.96). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (aOR 9.71; 95% CI 5.37-18.30), recurrent pancreatitis (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.32-3.29), chronic pancreatitis (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 1.47-5.15), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-2.53). Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (OR 9.49; 95% CI 6.31-14.29) and a high level of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10-point increase, OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. DISCUSSION: At least 1 of every 4 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis experience DPD, which is associated with detrimental, short-term and long-term interventions, and

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invas

Contains fulltext : 238452.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: Pain in chronic pancreatitis is subdivided in a continuous or intermittent pattern, each thought to represent a different entity, requiring specific treatment. Because evidence is missing, we studied pain patterns in a prospective longitudinal nationwide study. DESIGN: 1131 patients with chronic pancreatitis (fulfilling M-ANNHEIM criteria) were included between 2011 and 2018 in 30 Dutch hospitals. Patients with continuous or intermittent pain were compared for demographics, pain characteristics, quality of life (Short-Form 36), imaging findings, disease duration and treatment. Alternation of pain pattern and associated variables were longitudinally assessed using a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: At inclusion, 589 patients (52%) had continuous pain, 231 patients (20%) had intermittent pain and 311 patients (28%) had no pain. Patients with continuous pain had more severe pain, used more opioids and neuropathic pain medication, and had a lower quality of life. There were no differences between pain patterns for morphological findings on imaging, disease duration and treatment. During a median follow-up of 47 months, 552 of 905 patients (61%) alternated at least once between pain patterns. All alternations were associated with the Visual Analogue Scale pain intensity score and surgery was only associated with the change from pain to no pain. CONCLUSION: Continuous and intermittent pain patterns in chronic pancreatitis do not seem to be the result of distinctly different pathophysiological entities. The subjectively reported character of pain is not related to imaging findings or disease duration. Pain patterns often change over time and are merely a feature of how severity of pain is experienced.

Contains fulltext : 229424.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimally invasive treatments of anastomotic benign biliary stricture (BBS) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) include endoscopic placement of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs). No multiyear efficacy data are available on FCSEMS treatment after OLT. METHODS: We prospectively studied long-term efficacy and safety of FCSEMS treatment in adults aged≥18 years with past OLT, cholangiographically confirmed BBS, and an indication for ERCP with stent placement. Stent removal was planned after 4 to 6 months, with subsequent follow-up until 5 years or stricture recurrence. Long-term outcomes were freedom from stricture recurrence, freedom from recurrent stent placement, and stent-related serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: In 41 patients, long-term follow-up began after FCSEMS removal (n = 33) or observation of complete distal migration (CDM) (n = 8). On an intention-to-treat basis, the 5-year probability of remaining stent-free after FCSEMS removal or observation of CDM was 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.2%-64.7%) among all patients and 60.9% (95% CI, 43.6%-78.2%) among 31 patients with over 4 months of FCSEMS indwell time. In 28 patients with stricture resolution at FCSEMS removal or observed CDM (median, 5.0 months indwell time), the 5-year probability of no stricture recurrence was 72.6% (95% CI, 55.3%-90%). Sixteen patients (39%) had at least 1 related SAE, most commonly cholangitis (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: By 5 years after temporary FCSEMS treatment of post-OLT BBS, approximately half of all patients remained stent-free on an intention-to-treat basis. Stent-related SAEs (especially cholangitis) were common. FCSEMS placement is a viable long-term treatment option for patients with post-OLT BBS. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01014390.).

In high-risk individuals participating in a pancreatic cancer surveillance program, worrisome features warrant for intensified surveillance or, occasionally, surgery. Our objectives were to determine the patient-reported burden of intensified surveillance and/or surgery, and to assess post-operative quality of life and opinion of surgery. Participants in our pancreatic cancer surveillance program completed questionnaires including the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For individuals who underwent intensified surveillance, questionnaires before, during, and ≥ 3 weeks after were analyzed. In addition, subjects who underwent intensified surveillance in the past 3 years or underwent surgery at any time, were invited for an interview, that included the Short-Form 12 (SF-12). A total of 31 high-risk individuals were studied. During the intensified surveillance period, median CWS scores were higher (14, IQR 7), as compared to before (12, IQR 9, P = 0.007) and after (11, IQR 7, P = 0.014), but eventually returned back to baseline (P = 0.823). Median HADS scores were low: 5 (IQR 6) for anxiety and 3 (IQR 5) for depression, and they were unaffe

Contains fulltext : 190882.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP and may run a severe course. Evidence suggests that vigorous periprocedural hydration can prevent PEP, but studies to date have significant methodological drawbacks. Importantly, evidence for its added value in patients already receiving prophylactic rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking and the cost-effectiveness of the approach has not been investigated. We hypothesize that combination therapy of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural hydration would significantly lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to rectal NSAIDs alone in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. METHODS: The FLUYT trial is a multicenter, parallel group, open label, superiority randomized controlled trial. A total of 826 moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP that receive prophylactic rectal NSAIDs will be randomized to a control group (no fluids or normal saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg/h and 3 L/24 h) or intervention group (lactated Ringer's solution with 20 mL/kg over 60 min at start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h thereafter). The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include PEP severity, hydration-related complications, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The FLUYT trial design, including hydration schedule, fluid type, and sample size, maximize its power of identifying a potential difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2015-000829-37 . Registered on 18 February 2015. ISRCTN: 13659155 . Registered on 18 May 2015.

Contains fulltext : 189981.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 181861.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.62-1.51; p=0.88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.53-3.59, p=0.50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgica

Contains fulltext : 175667.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 155080.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis is a complex disease with many unanswered questions regarding the natural history and therapy. Prospective longitudinal studies with long-term follow-up are warranted. METHODS: The Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE) is a nationwide registry aimed at prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with chronic pancreatitis. All patients with (suspected) chronic or recurrent pancreatitis are eligible for CARE. Patients are followed-up by yearly questionnaires and review of medical records. Study outcomes are pain, disease complications, quality of life, and pancreatic function. The target sample size was set at 500 for the first year and 1000 patients within 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 1218 patients were included from February 2010 until June 2013 by 76 participating surgeons and gastroenterologist from 33 hospitals. Participation rate was 90% of eligible patients. Eight academic centers included 761 (62%) patients, while 25 community hospitals included 457 (38%). Patient centered outcomes were assessed by yearly questionnaires, which had a response rate of 85 and 82% for year 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of patients was 58 years, 814 (67%) were male, and 38% had symptoms for less than 5 years. DISCUSSION: The CARE registry has successfully recruited over 1200 patients with chronic and recurrent pancreatitis in about 3 years. The defined inclusion criteria ensure patients are included at an early disease stage. Participation and compliance rates are high. CARE offers a unique opportunity with sufficient power to investigate many clinical questions regarding natural course, complications, and efficacy and timing of treatment strategies.

Contains fulltext : 137921.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.

Contains fulltext : 118332.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: In current practice, patients with chronic pancreatitis undergo surgical intervention in a late stage of the disease, when conservative treatment and endoscopic interventions have failed. Recent evidence suggests that surgical intervention early on in the disease benefits patients in terms of better pain control and preservation of pancreatic function. Therefore, we designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of early surgical intervention compared to the current stepwise practice for chronic pancreatitis. METHODS/DESIGN: The ESCAPE trial is a randomized controlled, parallel, superiority multicenter trial. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated pancreatic duct (>/= 5 mm) and moderate pain and/or frequent flare-ups will be registered and followed monthly as potential candidates for the trial. When a registered patient meets the randomization criteria (i.e. need for opioid analgesics) the patient will be randomized to either early surgical intervention (group A) or optimal current step-up practice (group B). An expert panel of chronic pancreatitis specialists will oversee the assessment of eligibility and ensure that allocation to either treatment arm is possible. Patients in group A will undergo pancreaticojejunostomy or a Frey-procedure in case of an enlarged pancreatic head (>/= 4 cm). Patients in group B will undergo a step-up practice of optimal medical treatment, if needed followed by endoscopic interventions, and if needed followed by surgery, according to predefined criteria. Primary outcome is pain assessed with the Izbicki pain score during a follow-up of 18 months. Secondary outcomes include complications, mortality, total direct and indirect costs, quality of life, pancreatic insufficiency, alternative pain scales, length of hospital admission, number of interventions and pancreatitis flare-ups. For the sample size calculation we defined a minimal clinically relevant difference in the primary endpoint

Contains fulltext : 126176.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

Contains fulltext : 125789.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), In esophageal cancer patients preoperative staging will determine the type of surgical procedure and use of neoadjuvant therapy. Tumor location and lymph node status play a pivotal role in this tailored strategy. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of preoperative assessment of tumor location according to the Siewert classification and lymph node status per station with endoscopy/endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT).In 50 esophagectomy patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), tumor location according to Siewert and N-stage per nodal station as determined preoperatively by endoscopy/EUS and CT were compared with the histopathologic findings in the resection specimen.Overall accuracy in predicting tumor location according to the Siewert classification was 70 \% for endoscopy/EUS and 72 \% for CT. Preoperative data could not be compared with the pathologic assessment in 11 patients (22 \%), as large tumors obscured the landmark of the gastric folds. The overall accuracy for predicting the N-stage in 250 lymph node stations was 66 \% for EUS and 68 \% for CT. The accuracy was good for those stations located high in the thorax, but poor for celiac trunk nodes.Given the frequent discrepancy between the endoscopic and pathologic location of the GEJ and the common problem of advanced tumors obscuring the landmarks used in the assessment of the Siewert classification, its usefulness is limited. The overall accuracy for EUS and CT in predicting the N-stage per station was moderate.

Contains fulltext : 107716.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Intense abdominal pain is the dominant feature of chronic pancreatitis. During the disease changes in central pain processing, e.g. central sensitization manifest as spreading hyperalgesia, can result from ongoing nociceptive input. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of pregabalin on pain processing in chronic pancreatitis as assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated effects of pregabalin on pain processing. QST was used to quantify pain processing by measuring thresholds to painful electrical and pressure stimulation in six body dermatomes. Descending endogenous pain modulation was quantified using the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm to elicit a DNIC (diffuse noxious inhibitory controls) response. The main effect parameter was the change in the sum of all body pain threshold values after three weeks of study treatment versus baseline values between both treatment groups. RESULTS: 64 patients were analyzed. No differences in change in sum of pain thresholds were present for pregabalin vs. placebo after three weeks of treatment. For individual dermatomes, change vs. baseline pain thresholds was significantly greater in pregabalin vs. placebo patients for electric pain detection threshold in C5 (P = 0.005), electric pain tolerance threshold in C5 (P = 0.04) and L1 (P = 0.05), and pressure pain tolerance threshold in T4 (P = 0.004). No differences were observed between pregabalin and placebo regarding conditioned pain modulation. CONCLUSION: Our study provides first evidence that pregabalin has moderate inhibitory effects on central sensitization manifest as spreading hyperalgesia in chronic pancreatitis patients. These findings suggest that QST can be of clinical use for monitoring pain treatments in the context of chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00755573.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic transpapillary stenting (ETS) of the pancreatic duct facilitates ductal outflow and may reduce time to pancreatic fistula closure. However, data on the feasibility of ETS in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are scarce. BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistulas often occur after intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis and frequently close only after months of conservative treatment. METHODS: From a prospective cohort of patients with acute pancreatitis admitted in 15 hospitals (2004-2007), all patients who underwent ETS or conservative treatment for a pancreatic fistula were identified. Safety, feasibility, and outcome of ETS were evaluated. Furthermore, a literature review was performed for similar studies in necrotizing pancreatitis. RESULTS: Of 731 patients with acute pancreatitis, 19 patients were treated with ETS and 16 patients were treated conservatively for a pancreatic fistula. Fistula closure was achieved in 16 of 19 patients (84%) in the ETS group and in 8 of 12 patients (75%) in the conservative group (P = 0.175). The median time to fistula closure after ETS was 71 days (interquartile range [IQR] 34-142) compared with 120 days (IQR 51-175 days) in the conservative group (P = 0.130). Complications were observed in 6 patients. A total of 10 studies reporting the results of 281 patients with stent placement for pancreatic fistulas were included in the literature review. Fistula closure was achieved in 200 patients (71%). Stent-related complications were reported in 9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: ETS seems a feasible and safe alternative to conservative treatment in patients with pancreatic fistulas after intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis.

1 juni 2010, Contains fulltext : 87226.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND & AIMS: Two percent to 4% of all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are associated with Lynch syndrome. Dominant clustering of CRC (non-Lynch syndrome) accounts for 1%-3% of the cases. Because carcinogenesis is accelerated in Lynch syndrome, an intensive colonoscopic surveillance program has been recommended since 1995. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. METHODS: The study included 205 Lynch syndrome families with identified mutations in one of the mismatch repair genes (745 mutation carriers). We also analyzed data from non-Lynch syndrome families (46 families, 344 relatives). Patients were observed from January 1, 1995, until January 1, 2009. End points of the study were CRC or date of the last colonoscopy. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7.2 years, 33 patients developed CRC under surveillance. The cumulative risk of CRC was 6% after the 10-year follow-up period. The risk of CRC was higher in carriers older than 40 years and in carriers of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations. After a mean follow-up of 7.0 years, 6 cases of CRC were detected among non-Lynch syndrome families. The risk of CRC was significantly higher among families with Lynch syndrome, compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: With surveillance intervals of 1-2 years, members of families with Lynch syndrome have a lower risk of developing CRC than with surveillance intervals of 2-3 years. Because of the low risk of CRC in non-Lynch syndrome families, a less intensive surveillance protocol can be recommended.