Management of Adult with >100 Colonic Polyps and Family History of FAP
This patient requires immediate prophylactic surgery, specifically proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), given the presence of >100 polyps consistent with classical FAP and strong family history—surveillance alone is inadequate and dangerous. 1
Why Surgery is Mandatory
Patients with classical FAP and 100+ colorectal polyps require colectomy without delay to prevent the near-inevitable development of colorectal cancer, which occurs by mean age 40-50 years without surgical intervention 1, 2
The presence of >100 polyps definitively establishes classical FAP diagnosis, particularly with two first-degree relatives already diagnosed and treated for FAP 3
Follow-up colonoscopy alone (Option B) is contraindicated as the primary management strategy—this patient has already crossed the threshold requiring definitive surgical intervention 1
Choosing Between Surgical Options
Proctocolectomy with IPAA (Option C) - RECOMMENDED
This is the preferred operation for classical FAP because it removes all at-risk colorectal mucosa and eliminates the 12-29% lifetime risk of rectal cancer that persists after ileorectal anastomosis. 3, 1
IPAA is specifically indicated when there are >15-20 rectal polyps, which is likely given the >100 total colonic polyps described 1
The operation achieves excellent long-term functional outcomes with >95% patient satisfaction and is safe with 0.5-1% mortality 4
Guidelines explicitly state IPAA is "the operation of choice" for FAP "in view of the long-term risk of rectal cancer" 3
Colectomy with IRA (Option A) - NOT RECOMMENDED in this case
IRA is reserved only for highly selected patients with relative rectal sparing (<20 polyps), all rectal adenomas <5mm, and patients who can commit to lifelong intensive surveillance 1
The question states "normal rest of the rectum" but does not specify polyp count in the rectum—with >100 total colonic polyps, significant rectal involvement is highly probable 5
The 12-29% risk of rectal cancer after IRA requires annual lifelong surveillance, and this risk is unacceptable when IPAA can eliminate it 3, 1
IRA might be considered only if there are truly <5 rectal polyps, but even then IPAA is recommended for the vast majority of FAP patients 4
Critical Decision Algorithm
Choose IPAA if ANY of the following:
15-20 rectal polyps 1
- Any rectal polyps >5mm diameter 1
- High-grade dysplasia in any rectal polyp 1
- Patient unlikely to comply with annual lifelong rectal surveillance 1
- Patient preference to eliminate cancer risk completely 3
Consider IRA ONLY if ALL of the following:
- <20 rectal polyps (preferably <5) 1, 4
- All rectal polyps <5mm 1
- No high-grade dysplasia 1
- Patient strongly desires better functional outcomes 1
- Patient can commit to annual lifelong rectoscopy 3
Post-Surgical Surveillance Requirements
After IPAA (if chosen):
- Annual surveillance of the anorectal cuff for life (can be every 1-2 years in some protocols) 1
- Adenomas can still develop in the pouch (8-62% incidence) requiring lifelong monitoring 4
After IRA (if chosen):
- Annual endoscopic examination of retained rectum for life is mandatory 3, 1
- More frequent surveillance (every 6-12 months) if significant rectal polyp burden persists 1
Upper GI Surveillance (regardless of procedure):
- Begin at age 25-30 years with gastroduodenal endoscopy using front and side-view scopes 3, 1
- Frequency based on Spigelman staging of duodenal polyposis 1
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Do not delay surgery for "further surveillance"—this patient is already at high risk and surgery should proceed promptly 1, 6
Do not choose IRA simply because the rectum appears "normal" on visual inspection—polyp count and size must be specifically documented 1
Do not perform abdominoperineal resection (Miles operation)—this is not recommended for FAP as it requires permanent stoma and discourages family screening 3
Do not assume benign biopsy means low risk—the sheer number of polyps (>100) drives cancer risk, not individual polyp histology at this point 1, 2